ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Nuclear Weapons (Vienna Conference)

Jeremy Corbyn: Whether the UK will be officially represented at the conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons to be held in Vienna in December 2014.

Tobias Ellwood: The Government have received an invitation to the conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons to be held in Vienna in December. We are considering whether to attend.

Jeremy Corbyn: I urge the Government to attend the conference and to join the family of nations around the world that supported the previous conferences. One hundred and twenty-eight nations attended the 2013 conference in Norway, 145 went to Mexico earlier this year and the New Zealand Government, on behalf of 155 nations, have urged universal attendance at this conference. They have drawn attention to the first ever resolution that was passed by the UN General Assembly in 1946, which drew attention to the devastating effects of nuclear weapons and nuclear warfare on humanity as a whole. Britain should be there and should not boycott it, as it will apparently do along with the other five permanent members of the Security Council.

Tobias Ellwood: The House will be aware of the hon. Gentleman’s consistent views on this subject. The goals of the conference are unclear and, consequently, none of the P5 nuclear weapon states has attended the conferences in the past, as he said. We do not believe that a ban on nuclear weapons is negotiable, nor that it would even be observed by many nuclear powers. Even if it could be achieved in theory, in practice the confidence and verification measures that would be necessary to make it effective are not in place.

Julian Lewis: Does my hon. Friend agree that the greatest humanitarian effect of Britain’s possession of a nuclear deterrent is to reduce the chances of nuclear war or nuclear blackmail against this country?

Tobias Ellwood: The House is, as ever, grateful for my hon. Friend’s interest and expertise in this matter. The Government’s policy is that the Vanguard class submarine
	will be replaced at the end of its life in the late-2020s by the successor strategic submarine, which will carry the Trident missiles, subject to main-gate investment approval for the programme in 2016. I know that he will approve of that.

Angus Robertson: The last conference was attended by more than 140 states and by the United Nations, the Red Crescent and civil society. What message does it send to the rest of the world and to rogue regimes that seek to have nuclear weapons that the UK is prepared to boycott such a conference? The Minister went to school in Vienna. Why does he not take the opportunity to go back and take part in the conference?

Tobias Ellwood: As I said, the objectives of the conference are unclear. That is why the P5 nations have not attended in the past. The hon. Gentleman suggests that we are doing nothing. We have reduced the number of nuclear warheads that we possess by well over 50% since the peak of the cold war. In 2010, this Government announced further reductions to no more than 120 operationally available warheads and a total stockpile of no more than 180 warheads by the mid-2020s. That is action, which is what the Government need to pursue.

Religious Minorities (Algeria)

Naomi Long: What recent representations he has made to the Algerian Government on ensuring that Christians and other religious minorities are protected from persecution and discrimination.

Tobias Ellwood: We regularly discuss human rights with the Algerian Government, although we have not raised religious freedoms specifically. Human rights will be on the agenda for the next meeting of the EU-Algeria political dialogue.

Naomi Long: I thank the Minister for his answer, although I am disappointed that religious persecution has not been raised with the Algerian Government. What advice is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office giving to colleagues in the immigration service to ensure that they are fully equipped to offer good advice and support to people from Algeria and north Africa more generally who apply for asylum on the basis of religious persecution?

Tobias Ellwood: I certainly will raise the matter with my Algerian counterparts. The hon. Lady has raised an important issue. She will be aware that regulations governing religion in Algeria came into force in May 2007. They are designed to be multi-faith and not to focus on one particular religion. I would be delighted to meet her to discuss the matter in more detail.

Alistair Burt: The atmosphere in which religious discrimination takes place is affected by other issues in a country, including economic pressures and the like. Does my hon. Friend think that the recent successful elections in Tunisia will ease the atmosphere in respect of persecution across the area more generally? Does he also think that economic development in the area, which is necessary for justice to prevail, is getting a boost from our work in Algeria?

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question, and Tunisia is to be congratulated on the considerable progress it has made. It has just completed parliamentary elections, and presidential elections will follow in November, replacing the technocratic Government who have guided the country on its transition towards its new status as a fully fledged democracy. I very much welcome those changes: strong civil society, national dialogue, an apolitical army, and new progress towards a constitution.

Frank Roy: Religious intolerance and persecution is a problem throughout the world. What will the Government do to raise that issue with the Human Rights Council next year, and what does the Minister think the United Nations can do now to tackle the problem?

Tobias Ellwood: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and the issue is raised at the United Nations General Assembly and in our bilaterals. Britain will continue to raise the issue on a regular basis at all our meetings, not just those in the middle east but also with other countries where there are questions to be asked in that area.

Barry Sheerman: What is the Minister doing for my constituents who have complained not only about the treatment of Christians in Algeria but also about the increasing pressure on Christians in Pakistan? What are we doing to monitor that, and what will we do about it?

Tobias Ellwood: As I said, we are having bilaterals on that issue. The specific issue in Algeria is to do with new regulations that have been introduced. The rules are there but they now need to be implemented, and we will continue to have a dialogue on that. I intend to visit Algeria soon, and given the concern that the House has expressed today, I will certainly raise that issue during my visit.

Chagossian Resettlement

Henry Smith: What progress his Department has made with the British Indian Ocean Territory Chagossian resettlement feasibility study; and if he will make a statement.

Hugo Swire: The independent feasibility study on resettlement of the British Indian Ocean Territory is on track to report by January 2015. Ongoing consultations with interested parties, including Chagossians, are taking place so that all relevant facts are considered in the analysis of the practical costs and risks of resettlement.

Henry Smith: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Given upcoming negotiations on extending the military base on Diego Garcia with the United States, may I have assurances from the Department that the interests of the Chagos islands people will be very much part of those discussions with Washington?

Hugo Swire: That is precisely why we have commissioned the KPMG report. The way that the Chagossians were treated following their removal in the ’60s and ’70s was
	clearly wrong, and substantial compensation was rightly paid. We welcome the US presence in Diego Garcia. It is an increasingly important asset for both our Governments, but there have been no formal discussions with the US about the possibility of extending the exchange of notes to date.

Mike Kane: I met 60 members of the Chagos community in my constituency on Friday—a faithful people but without the right to return they once again feel that will not adequately mourn their dead as they approach All Hallows next week. Their elders are passing away without having recorded their stories of displacement, and their young are finding it increasingly difficult to find salaried employment or to visit their friends in Crawley and other places across the country. They also worry about us ceding sovereignty. Does the Minister agree that we should be doing more for those people, rather than less?

Hugo Swire: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are no issues of any sort about ceding sovereignty—we should deal with that point straight away. The draft KPMG report, which we were not obliged to undertake, will be out on 17 November, and thereafter there will be time for all those who have been consulted to make such points before the final report early next year. That is why we have included the Chagossians in the testimony.[Official Report, 3 November 2014, Vol. 587, c. 5-6MC.]

Peter Tapsell: A previous Father of the House and great friend of mine, Sir Bernard Braine, was a passionate advocate of the rights of the inhabitants of Diego Garcia when the whole idea of turning it into a base was launched. In his memory, may I say that I very much hope that the guarantees that he received from the British Government of the time about looking after those people will be fulfilled?

Hugo Swire: My right hon. Friend is right to remind the House of our responsibilities towards the Chagossians, and as I said earlier, the actions of the ’60s and ’70s were clearly wrong and substantial compensation was rightly paid. It is worth pointing out that the British High Court in 2008, and the European Court in 2012, ruled that the compensation was a full and final settlement of the Chagossians’ claims.

Security Situation (Turkey)

Jesse Norman: What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Turkey.

David Lidington: Turkey is an important security partner for the UK in NATO and in actions against terrorism. She faces major challenges because of the conflicts in Syria and Iraq, and we value the Turkish humanitarian contribution and her support for coalition activities against ISIL.

Jesse Norman: I thank the Minister for that reply. The security situation in Turkey remains extraordinarily delicate. What support have the Government given to assist Turkey with those serious security concerns while also respecting the rights and freedoms of its citizens?

David Lidington: Only last week we held one of our regular discussions with the Turkish authorities about counter-terrorism co-operation. The subjects discussed included better work to detect explosive traces in material going through airports and how we can better share information about airline passengers to guard against future terrorist attack.

Mike Gapes: The Minister referred to Turkey’s role with regard to Syria. Does he agree that it is absolutely deplorable that the Turkish Government are not providing assistance to the besieged people of Kobane and the other Syrian Kurds facing an existential threat from ISIL? Turkey needs to get off the fence and to decide which side it is on. Is it with ISIL, or is it with the civilian population and the Kurds in Syria?

David Lidington: The Turkish Government have made it very clear that they are on the side of the coalition and against ISIL. They are now allowing Kurdish fighters to cross through Turkish territory to take part in the fighting around Kobane. It is also worth the hon. Gentleman bearing it in mind that Turkey is providing refuge to 1.5 million people who have fled the fighting in Iraq and Syria, and we ought to acknowledge that contribution too.

Crispin Blunt: Turkey’s security interests with regard to Islamic State are absolutely engaged, as are those of the other two major regional powers, Saudi Arabia and Iran. If those three countries can be got to agree a political strategy towards Islamic State, we will begin to have a sensible military strategy to underpin it. What work is going on to get those three countries to discuss that seriously?

David Lidington: There was a coalition meeting of Ministers in the margins of the recent NATO ministerial meeting at which that political discussion was taken forward. Clearly, we would welcome it unreservedly if it were possible to rally all the regional powers towards a united effort to defeat ISIL and to see the Iraqi Government, the legitimate authorities, re-establish control over all their territory.

Dennis Skinner: For four years, I have noticed that the Tory Con-Dem Government have very much been apologists for Turkey. The Prime Minister indicated that he wanted Turkey in the European Union. Here we are again, apologising, or at least this Front Bench is apologising, for Turkey’s failure to act in concert with the British and Americans. What is it that gets Tory Ministers so engaged in wanting to befriend Turkey and to get it into the EU?

David Lidington: The Government do not apologise for upholding the national interest of the United Kingdom by working closely with Turkey, which has been our NATO ally under Governments of different political colours over many decades. There are issues on which we disagree, in which case we make our views clear, but I hope that even the hon. Gentleman would welcome the work that the Turkish Government are doing to try to bring about a reconciliation with the Kurds—something we all want to see.

Gaza

Andrew Griffiths: What recent steps the Government have taken to assist with the reconstruction of Gaza.

Philip Hammond: On 12 October, at the reconstruction conference in Cairo, the UK pledged £20 million to help kick-start Gaza’s recovery. It is essential that both sides take the necessary practical steps to allow reconstruction. Reconstruction of Gaza is necessary and urgent to get the economy back to business, but progress to a political settlement must follow quickly on its heels.

Andrew Griffiths: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Many in the House were concerned about the impact on ordinary Palestinians during the 50-day conflict. Of particular concern was the bombing of the hospital in Gaza. Will he advise us what the Government are doing to help rebuild vital medical facilities in Gaza?

Philip Hammond: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is deeply engaged in that question. As I have said, we have pledged £20 million and we will continue to work with the UN and other agencies, but we urgently require an unsticking of the process that allows construction materials into Gaza so that physical reconstruction can commence. When that process is under way, I am sure there will be significant further pledges of assistance on top of the billions of dollars already available to reconstruct Gaza as a result of the Cairo conference.

Louise Ellman: Have any arrangements been agreed to ensure that much needed building materials for hospitals, schools and homes will not be diverted to rebuilding the terror tunnels, which Hamas claims it has started to do?

Philip Hammond: This is the essential challenge: ensuring that construction materials in the quantities needed can enter Gaza under a monitoring regime that is satisfactory to the Israelis as well as the Palestinians and that they are applied to the rebuilding of homes, schools, hospitals and infrastructure, and not diverted for military purposes. Such a mechanism is in place. There was a temporary glitch—hopefully—earlier this week in its operation, but officials are working flat out to try to resolve it. I hope we see major progress over the next few days.

Robert Halfon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while Hamas continues to rule Gaza with such brutality and to amass missiles—as we have heard, many of them are from Iran—the prospect of a viable and democratic Palestinian state looks ever more unlikely?

Philip Hammond: The challenge to the authority of the Palestinian Authority from what is happening in Gaza is an impediment to progress on a broader middle east peace settlement, but I am of the view that we must first bring humanitarian relief to Gaza, which means getting started urgently on reconstruction. We then need a sustained ceasefire and settlement around Gaza
	as a step to proceeding to a resumption of the wider middle east peace process. I hope for significant American leadership to revitalise that process over the coming weeks and months.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I agree with the Secretary of State that the urgent and pressing matter is the humanitarian and reconstruction needs currently faced by the people of Gaza. Is it a forlorn hope—can he give us some hope—for a political solution in the medium to long term that allows the security needs of the Israelis and the Israeli nation to be met at the same time as the lifting of the economic constrictions and the strangulation of Gaza? That has to be the way forward.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. All hon. Members would agree that the Gazan economy needs to be reactivated so that people can get back to something like life as normal. The stranglehold imposed by the access regime needs to be relaxed, but it can be relaxed only in the context of Israel feeling safe and secure.

Government of Ukraine

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What steps he is taking to offer support to the Government of Ukraine.

Philip Hammond: The UK is providing £19 million of assistance to the Ukrainian Government. We are one of the largest contributors of election and border monitors, but most importantly, we are maintaining pressure on Russia through sanctions to withdraw troops, to cease support for separatists and to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am sure the House wishes President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk every possible success in resolving their dispute with Russia peacefully. I met the Prime Minister in the summer and he told me that his country was desperately short of resources and equipment. I urge Her Majesty’s Government to do whatever they can to help.

Philip Hammond: The Government have already made non-lethal equipment available to support the Ukrainian armed forces, and we are working with European Union partners to look at the needs of the Ukrainian economy over the coming winter. Ukraine faces a massive energy crunch over the next few months, and the Ukrainian economy is likely to have shrunk by more than 6.5% since before the conflict began. We are acutely aware—we discussed this at the Foreign Affairs Council last Monday in Luxembourg—of the fact that Ukraine is likely to be looking for further support from the EU this winter.

Bob Ainsworth: Can the Foreign Secretary assure us that the Government are doing everything they can to ensure that the dismemberment of Ukraine stays at the forefront of everyone’s mind? Can he absolutely assure the House that there is no intention on our part of allowing this to slip down the agenda, thereby allowing the aggression to stand and the de facto creation of new Russia to become embedded?

Philip Hammond: The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. The big risk is of a frozen conflict and people’s attention turning elsewhere, and it would be disingenuous of me not to acknowledge that some of our European partners are more robust on the agenda that he has set out than others. We are determined—and we have some powerful allies in the European Union—to maintain the pressure on Russia, including keeping sanctions in place, until Russia complies with its obligations under the Minsk agreement, in particular: the removal of Russian forces; the proper monitoring of the border between Ukraine and Russia, not the line of control between separatists and Ukraine forces; and an end to active Russian support for the separatists.

Roger Gale: Last night I returned from Kharkiv, which, as my right hon. Friend knows, is just to the north of Donetsk in eastern Ukraine. In Kharkiv on Sunday, the situation was calm, peaceful and orderly, and I suspect we will find that the results of the election will prove to be fair and a proper reflection of what the people of Ukraine want. That being so, will my right hon. Friend call the Russian ambassador in and tell him that it is wholly inappropriate for the Russian Foreign Minister to seek to promote unofficial elections in Donetsk and Luhansk?

Philip Hammond: Sunday’s elections were a clear demonstration of Ukraine’s commitment to democracy. We have made it clear, and the European Union again last week endorsed a collective position, that we will not recognise illegal elections organised by separatists. The only elections we will recognise are those organised by and operating under Ukrainian law.

Pat McFadden: It is good to be back on the Front Bench after a short absence. I thank hon. Members for their messages of good will, especially those from some Government Members who are somewhat fearful of their own party’s direction at the present time.
	In our current debates about the European Union, we should not forget that its expansion to include former Warsaw pact countries was a victory for peace and democracy. It was a foreign policy victory for the west, championed by the Conservative Government at the time, and it means that war between member states is almost inconceivable. However, for countries outside the EU, such as Ukraine, it can be a very different story. Following the elections, what more can we do with our European partners to stop the further undermining of Ukrainian sovereignty and ensure that a newly elected Government there is free to choose its own path for the country’s future?

Philip Hammond: First, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s return to his place on the Front Bench. We look forward to debating all these issues with him.
	Of course the election on Sunday was important in underscoring the legitimacy of the Ukrainian Government. I have already set out our demands that the Russians comply with their obligations under the Minsk agreement—withdrawing their troops from Ukrainian territory, allowing proper monitoring of the border and ending their support to the separatists—but it goes further than that. It is about the more subtle forms of
	Russian control and influence over the Ukrainian economy and political system. We are working closely with President Poroshenko and his Government to ensure that Ukraine has a robust position in response to those forms of pressure. Although the European Union does not agree on all issues in relation to the Russia-Ukraine dispute, it is pretty much clear and unified in its view that Ukraine must be allowed to choose its own future free of external pressure.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: We need to speed up. Progress is very slow and there are a lot of questions to get through.

Israel and Palestine

Michael McCann: If he will encourage Israelis and Palestinians to participate in projects which bring them together and build a new generation of leaders committed to peace and dialogue.

Ian Austin: What steps his Department is taking to support projects that foster co-operation and co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians.

Grahame Morris: Whether he has discussed with his Israeli counterpart the content of the debate in the House on 13 October 2014 on Palestine and Israel; what recent discussions he has had with his Israeli counterpart on the future of the peace process; and if he will make a statement.

Tobias Ellwood: Despite the tragic events during the summer, we remain committed to supporting efforts for peace. Our embassy in Tel Aviv and the British consulate general in Jerusalem work closely with all sectors of society, including the ultra-Orthodox communities, Israeli Arabs and Palestinian communities affected by the occupation, to build constituencies for peace.

Michael McCann: I thank the Minister for his answer, but on an International Development Committee visit to the middle east earlier this year, it was noted that the conflict fund had insufficient funding to support groups that were promoting peace from both sides. I urge the Minister to expand the conflict fund pool and look again at organisations such as Cherish, Parents Circle and Middle East Education Through Technology, which are trying to get peace in the region.

Tobias Ellwood: Certainly, the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence are keen to receive strong applications for the conflict, stability and security fund—as the conflict fund is now called—for joint projects that bring Palestinians and Israelis together to achieve peace. This is the first time I have heard that there are issues to do with the funding. I will certainly look at it and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Ian Austin: It is important to step up the work that the Minister outlined, because the only way to resolve this conflict is through a stable, two-state solution with
	security and peace for both Israel and Palestine. There is no legalistic, unilateral or bureaucratic route to that objective; it will be achieved only by getting Israelis and Palestinians working together to build trust, to compromise and to negotiate and by means of economic development and trade in the west bank and by the reconstruction and demilitarisation of Gaza.

Tobias Ellwood: The whole House would agree with the hon. Gentleman. I, too, had the opportunity to visit Gaza, Jerusalem, Israel and the occupied territories over the last few weeks. I was astonished by the amount of energy there and by the people who absolutely want to work together. One example of that is the UK-Israel tech hub, which is driving economic and technological collaboration between the UK and Israel. The hub is working with Israeli and Arab experts, including Palestinian, to support work and build partnerships in the quick-growing Arab internet sector.

Grahame Morris: May I draw the Minister’s attention to comments made last week by the Israeli deputy Defence Minister, Moshe Yalom, a Likud party MP and close ally of Prime Minister Netanyahu. He said about President Abbas:
	“He is a partner for discussion; a partner for managing the conflict. I am not looking for a solution, I am looking for a way to manage the conflict and maintain relations in a way that works for our interests.”
	Has the Foreign Secretary discussed those comments with Israeli officials?

Tobias Ellwood: We take on board the comments made, and it is interesting to note that on Yalom’s visit to the United States, no senior representation was there to meet him. That is perhaps a reflection of how out of sync those comments were. As the Foreign Secretary has reiterated, it is important that we focus on humanitarian efforts, which were discussed at the Gaza donor conference in Cairo, which I attended. Then we should see an immediate return to negotiations.

David Davies: Even strong supporters of the state of Israel are concerned that building on the west bank is likely to postpone the peaceful dialogue that we all want to see. What is the Government’s position on that?

Tobias Ellwood: The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have condemned the building in the occupied territories. Such building certainly makes it more difficult for Israel’s friends to defend it against accusations that it is not taking the process for peace seriously. We very much encourage all sides to come to the table. I visited the E1 area on my recent visit, and it was clear what difficulties this building would cause in the conurbation between Ramallah, Hebron and Bethlehem. We discourage the building of any further settlements there.

Menzies Campbell: Illegal settlements are not just about how to defend the Israeli Government. Surely, the result of such settlements is to put the possibility of a two-state solution further and further into the future, to the extent that it could be argued that such a solution has now been completely undermined. Does my hon. Friend accept that no leader
	of the Palestinians could accept a solution that, for example, made it impossible for a Palestinian state to have East Jerusalem as its capital?

Tobias Ellwood: The issues raised by such settlements are very serious indeed, but we must not allow them to deflect from the bigger issue of reaching an actual settlement. It is possible for land swaps to take place and, as my right hon. and learned Friend implies, what is happening is illegal under article 46 of the Hague regulations. However, we do not want people to be distracted by the settlements; we want them to come to the table and restart the negotiations.

James Morris: Does the Minister agree that the key point is for the Israelis and the Palestinians to get round the negotiating table to discuss a two-state solution without preconditions, reflecting Israel’s security interests and the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians?

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend’s question illustrates the complexity of the situation. We do require leadership on both sides. From Israel we require a commitment to dialogue and to avoiding all actions that undermine prospects for peace, including settlement activity, while the Palestinian Authority must show leadership in recommitting itself to the dialogue and establishing itself as the authoritative voice in Gaza.

John Spellar: The Arab peace initiative could prove vital in assisting a move towards the essential two-state solution for Israel and the long-suffering Palestinian people. Does the Minister agree that in the light of yesterday’s welcome Tunisian election results, which were good news not only for the Tunisian people but for the wider Arab world, it is right for such regional initiatives to be considered as a matter of urgency?

Tobias Ellwood: I think that those are wise words. I have congratulated Tunisia on the journey it has made, bearing in mind that it was responsible for the very start of the Arab Spring. It is a small ray of hope in a very complex area, and I hope that other nations will take a lead from it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry not to have accommodated more colleagues on question 7, but both questions and answers have been extremely long.

EU Sanctions (Russia)

Jonathan Reynolds: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of EU sanctions against Russia in encouraging a change of approach by that country towards eastern Ukraine.

Philip Hammond: EU sanctions are having a clear impact on Russia’s economy. Capital flight has increased, and Russian access to western financial markets is severely constrained. Sanctions are estimated to have slowed GDP growth by 1%, and to have contributed to
	the rouble’s falling by 20% against the dollar since 1 January. The fall in the oil price is piling further pressure on the Russian economy.

Jonathan Reynolds: What is the Foreign Secretary’s considered assessment of the relationship between the dependence of some of our European partners on Russian energy supplies, and the effectiveness and robustness of the sanctions that we have pursued against Russia?

Philip Hammond: The sanctions are robust. I think that the important relationship is between the dependence on Russian energy supplies and the robustness of the position of some of our partners on the question of maintaining those sanctions. Fortunately, the sanctions that are in place will last until March or May, depending on the type of sanction involved, before any opportunity arises to debate their renewal or otherwise. That means that, at the very least, we shall get through the winter with the sanctions in place.[Official Report, 3 November 2014, Vol. 587, c. 6MC.]

Martin Horwood: We hear that today, having apparently endorsed the main Ukrainian elections, Moscow has yet again reiterated its support for separate elections in Luhansk and Donetsk, thus undermining the peace process. Does the Foreign Secretary think that that should lead the European Union to review the level of sanctions that is appropriate, and, if necessary, enhance it?

Philip Hammond: I think that the correct response is simply to ignore, and refuse to recognise, the results of any elections that were organised illegally by the separatists.

Anne McGuire: Sanctions should be a means to a diplomatic end. These sanctions are clearly having an impact on the Russian economy, but can the Secretary of State update the House on what diplomatic reaction there has been from President Putin in the light of the pressure on his economy?

Philip Hammond: I do not think that the phrases “diplomatic reaction” and “President Putin” usually go hand in hand. There has certainly been a reaction from President Putin, but I am not sure whether it could be described as diplomatic.
	Channels are open. The Germans, in particular, maintain a close dialogue with the Kremlin. I think that the Kremlin understands, and needs to understand, the determination of the European Union to stand firm, and the fact that it must honour its obligations under the Minsk agreement. There is nothing else to discuss at the moment.

ISIL

Sandra Osborne: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of UK military strikes in Iraq in helping to tackle the advance of ISIL.

Stephen Hammond: What assessment he has made of the effect of coalition airstrikes on ISIL.

Philip Hammond: The United Kingdom is part of a coalition of more than 60 countries supporting the Government of Iraq against ISIL, and RAF strikes are assisting Iraqi ground forces. A number of strategically important towns in the North have been liberated by the peshmerga, but the scale of the problem remains significant. The coalition’s air intervention has halted the rapid ISIL advance, but it alone is not capable of rolling back ISIL’s gains. Ultimately, the fight against ISIL in Iraq must be led by the Iraqis themselves, with the new Government ensuring that there is an inclusive and unified response.

Sandra Osborne: The Secretary of State has rightly acknowledged that the air strikes are only one element of a wider political and military strategy, including support for the creation of a more representative Iraqi Government. Having just returned from Iraq with the Foreign Affairs Committee, I am aware of ongoing disputes between Irbil and Baghdad, which may well have a negative effect on the achievement of that aim. What progress does the Foreign Secretary think can be made, and what are the implications if the situation cannot be resolved?

Philip Hammond: There are still outstanding disputes between Irbil and Baghdad, but, if I may say so having been there two and a half weeks ago myself, the mood music between Irbil and Baghdad is much better now than it has been for months, probably years. Kurdish Ministers are now in Baghdad. There is a serious discussion going on about the division of oil revenues, which is one of the crucial outstanding issues. I told the House a week or so ago, and I repeat again today, that I am optimistic about relationships between Irbil and Baghdad at least in the medium term.

Stephen Hammond: Important though air strikes are, of course alone they are not going to defeat ISIL. In his answer to the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) my right hon. Friend explained the political progress being made in Iraq. Will he update the House on how he sees the importance of political progress in Syria in also defeating ISIL?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the fullness of time, pushing ISIL back in Iraq, which is our first priority, will not be sufficient to defeat that organisation; there will have to be political progress in Syria as well. At the moment we are focused on ensuring the consolidation of the Syrian moderate opposition and the organisation of the additional training and equipping that the US Congress has now agreed to finance for Syrian moderate opposition fighters.

Douglas Alexander: Speaking of the campaign against ISIL, the US director of national intelligence recently testified that the Syrian opposition is composed of at least 1,500 separate militias, and a recent US congressional report went further in claiming that the Free Syrian Army does not actually refer to any
	“organised command and control structure with national reach”,
	so can the Foreign Secretary set out whether the Government’s own scoping exercise that is under way is
	focused on the Free Syrian Army, or whether support for other opposition groups is being considered as part of this exercise?

Philip Hammond: We will be working closely with our American allies, and General John Allen in his newly appointed role will be the overall co-ordinator of this programme, but the Americans have made it very clear that while the Free Syrian Army will be part of this programme of training and equipping, the whole thing will not operate under the umbrella of the Free Syrian Army; there will be other organisations who are judged to be moderate and share our objectives who will be able to participate.

Malcolm Rifkind: But does the Secretary of State accept that in Syria it is going to be months, if not years, before the Syrian moderate opposition will be strong enough to push back the Islamic State terrorists in the north? Is there not a fundamental gap in international strategy, including that of the British Government, if that is what they are relying on to remove Islamic State in Syria?

Philip Hammond: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right; it will take time—it will take time to train and organise the force that will be able to do this. In the meantime, we will use coalition air strikes to contain and degrade ISIL, but defeating it on the ground will take Syrian boots, and training those Syrian boots is going to take time.

Ann Clwyd: During a visit by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs to Iraq and Kurdistan last week we were told of the gratitude of the Iraqis and the Kurds towards the British Government for the help they are giving. We also saw the peshmerga being trained with the new weaponry that has been sent to Kurdistan, but they are taking enormous hits. They are very brave as we all know, but they are taking enormous hits and they need more weapons; that is the message they wanted us to get across.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady and she will not be surprised to learn that I heard a very similar message when I was in Irbil a couple of weeks ago. The Prime Minister has appointed Lieutenant General Sir Simon Mayall as his security envoy to the Kurdistan Regional Government. Part of his task is to assess the needs of the peshmerga, and their abilities as well—there is no point giving them weapons they cannot maintain or use effectively. We have supplied them with some heavy calibre machine guns, which they are now deploying to good effect, but we are constantly open to suggestions from the peshmerga about any additional requirements they may have.

Richard Ottaway: The point has just been made that the peshmerga are defending hundreds of miles of frontier with just rifles, and what they desperately need is equipment, equipment and equipment. To what extent is the Foreign Office liaising with our allies to make sure there is not a duplication of equipment and to enable us to supply the very important equipment they need?

Philip Hammond: There is co-ordination with allies. Part of the point of the US appointing General John Allen to act as a co-ordinator for the coalition is to ensure that we do these things efficiently and effectively.
	My right hon. Friend is right to suggest that the peshmerga are defending 1,000 km of frontier in what is effectively ISIL-controlled territory. They are doing that extraordinarily bravely, but there are still significant deficiencies in their weaponry, and we must look collectively at those and address them as rapidly as we can.

Kurdish Peshmerga

Nick de Bois: What steps the Government are taking to support the Kurdish peshmerga.

Philip Hammond: As I have just said, the Prime Minister has appointed Lieutenant General Sir Simon Mayall as his security envoy to the Kurdistan region of Iraq. At the request of the Government of Iraq, we have delivered over 300 tonnes of supplies to Irbil. This includes over 100 tonnes of weapons and equipment from the UK. We are instructing peshmerga soldiers on the operation of the heavy machine guns that we have delivered, as well as on counter-IED techniques.

Nick de Bois: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Does he believe that more could be done by regional states to support the fight against ISIS by the peshmerga? Does he also believe that more could be done to ensure that we retain the support of our constituents who rightly think that more should be done by the regions?

Philip Hammond: Yes, but let me answer that question slightly more widely. The situation in Iraq, including in the Kurdistan region, is complex. There is a lot of history and a lot of baggage in the region. While the neighbouring states are all—remarkably—aligned in their desire to see ISIL defeated, the historical pattern of relationships and enmities between the different groups means that we have to take care when deciding who does what and how they do it. We need to be sensitive to the context of the region.

Keith Vaz: This is not just about Iraq and Syria. As the Foreign Secretary knows, ISIL-backed groups have also been successful in bringing Yemen to the brink of civil war. What further action can be taken to help the Governments of the whole region?

Philip Hammond: Specifically on Yemen, we are very concerned about the security situation there and we continue to support the legitimate Government in Sana’a and to work with regional partners. I had a meeting with Gulf Co-operation Council partners the week before last, at which we considered carefully the options for supporting the legitimate regime in Sana’a against the Houthi coup.

Political Prisoners (Burma)

Bob Russell: When he last raised with the Burmese Government the subject of political prisoners in Burma.

Hugo Swire: I last raised the subject of political prisoners with Burma’s Deputy Foreign Minister Thant Kyaw in June. We welcome the release of more than 1,000 political prisoners since 2011, but we are concerned by the recent rise in politically motivated arrests and we continue to lobby for the unconditional release of all political prisoners.

Bob Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. He has confirmed that the number of political prisoners in Burma is going up. Will he tell us how many additional political prisoners have been arrested there this year?

Hugo Swire: Since 8 October, 3,000 petty criminals have been released, as well as 91 in August and 109 in September, including child soldiers. The answer, however, is that one political prisoner in Burma is one too many, and we will continue to make that point to visiting Ministers, who come here fairly regularly these days.

Valerie Vaz: As well as raising the subject of political prisoners, will the Minister also raise the subject of the killing of the journalist Aung Naing by the Burmese army?

Hugo Swire: I shall certainly raise that matter; we have raised it already, but I shall give the hon. Lady an update on the results of our investigations.

Kerry McCarthy: The Minister has rightly raised concerns that the headline figures for the release of political prisoners are perhaps not what they seem. Concerns have been raised about conditions being attached to the release of prisoners, for example, and about the continuing arrests of human rights defenders and journalists. Does he share the concern of the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights about signs of possible backtracking by the Burmese regime? What can we do to ensure that Burma remains on the road to democracy as we approach next year’s elections?

Hugo Swire: As the hon. Lady knows, we have continuing concerns, not least in Rakhine and Kachin. Only yesterday I was discussing these concerns with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has just been there. The big goal in all this is the parliamentary elections next year. We will continue to do everything we can to ensure that they are inclusive and credible elections, from which can flow a better and more democratic Burma for all the component parts of that wonderful country.

Southern Lebanon

Michael Fabricant: What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in southern Lebanon.

Tobias Ellwood: We regularly assess the security situation in southern Lebanon, as well as the rest of the country. We are concerned about the continued low-level violence, but commend the crucial role of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon—UNIFIL—in maintaining the peace and de-escalating conflict when it occurs.

Michael Fabricant: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will know from his previous job that Iran provides funds and arms to insurgents who previously killed and maimed British soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran is now doing the same with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. What steps can we take to stop Iran being such a dangerous body in that part of the world?

Tobias Ellwood: We are watching the situation carefully, but we currently judge that neither Israel nor Hezbollah wants to escalate the situation in southern Lebanon. Both sides have chosen to make public statements following recent incidents, and UNIFIL-led tripartite meetings involving the Lebanese armed forces, the Israeli defence force and the UN are arranged, and have successfully reduced tension and prevented escalation.

Topical Questions

Andrew Turner: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Philip Hammond: Since the summer, the Foreign Office has responded to multiple crises. The UK has joined the coalition against ISIL in Iraq and Syria, pledged £20 million to help rebuild Gaza, led a tough European response to Russian aggression in Ukraine, and been front and centre of the international fight against Ebola. Beyond those immediate crises, my priority is to put the national interest at the heart of everything the Foreign Office does: to redouble the FCO’s efforts to help British companies abroad; to lay the ground for a renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with the European Union; and to ensure that the Foreign Office builds stability overseas to maintain our security at home.

Andrew Turner: What steps is the Minister taking to bring more allies to make a significant contribution to the fight against Ebola?

Philip Hammond: The UK is leading on the Ebola response in Sierra Leone, and the British people should be extremely proud of what we have delivered: we have so far pledged nearly £250 million; we are building 700 beds in the country; we have about 750 service personnel deployed in support of that operation; and we are lobbying furiously for support from both European Union partners and other countries around the world. I am pleased to say that that lobbying effort is beginning to bear fruit, with significant pledges of both money and, more importantly, clinical workers to support the effort we are carrying out in Sierra Leone.

Douglas Alexander: May I welcome, on behalf of the Opposition, the UK’s £205 million contribution to helping tackle the spread of Ebola, and of course the additional EU resources secured at last week’s Council meeting? Will the Foreign Secretary set out how quickly those resources from other EU member states will be utilised? The commitments are important but, as he recognises, it is vital that action is taken on the ground in west Africa.

Philip Hammond: Many of the financial commitments that have been made are commitments to support the UN fund. The UN recognises that the three framework
	countries—the United States in Liberia, France in Guinea and the UK in Sierra Leone—are best positioned to deliver an effect on the ground. One thing we are trying to do is get partner countries to plug in to the framework that we have already put on the ground. So we are building these 700 beds, we have a logistics operation in place and where we are told, for example, by Australia, “I can give you 50 clinical staff”, we can plug those in straight away; they do not have to set up an operation on the ground.

Douglas Alexander: Let me ask a little more about the operation on the ground. It is, of course, right that we acknowledge the extraordinary work being undertaken by British aid workers, officials and troops based in the region, who are putting themselves at considerable personal risk. I also pay tribute to the International Development Secretary, who sent an important signal by travelling there with British troops. Of course it is the responsibility of the Government to support their efforts and to take every possible precaution with the safety of British personnel, so will the Foreign Secretary set out what measures are in place to support the diplomatic and consular staff, as well as the military, who are currently based in west Africa?

Philip Hammond: That is a very good question. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we have slimmed down our diplomatic staff, removing from Freetown people who are medically vulnerable and dependants who do not need to be there. We are constructing, and will have in operation within the next 10 days, a dedicated 12-bed unit, run by British military medics, for the treatment of international health care workers and British nationals to a western standard of care. We also have a medevac capability, which has been pretty thin over the past few months but which by the end of this will month will have surged in capability so that we would be able to deal with any foreseeable level of medevac requirement from Sierra Leone.

Paul Maynard: Ministers will be aware that Boko Haram continues to detain 200 young women in Nigeria and that the country becomes progressively more unstable and divided as the weeks go by. What can the UK do diplomatically to try to support more effective government in Nigeria?

Philip Hammond: As my hon. Friend knows, an election is taking place in Nigeria next year and, in the pre-election season, it is quite difficult to change government behaviour. We are working closely with the Nigerian security services, military and intelligence services to try to track down the Chibok schoolgirls and other people who have been kidnapped by Boko Haram.

Pat Glass: It is vital that the countries affected by Ebola get the right medical, logistical and engineering personnel they need not only to deal with the immediate situation but to rebuild their health systems. What advice and training are the Government giving to British nationals who are travelling to the region to help fight this virus?

Philip Hammond: The British Army medical corps has established a facility just outside York to train people who have volunteered to work in UK facilities in Sierra
	Leone. These people have nursing qualifications and experience, but they need training around the specific precautions that are required to be taken in relation to protective equipment to prevent infection by the Ebola virus. Ensuring that people understand how to protect themselves is the key to slowing down the transmission rate of this disease.

Paul Uppal: Iran’s recent execution of a 26-year-old woman has attracted international condemnation. It is a tragic reminder that Iran continues to lead the world in executions per capita and retains one of the world’s worst human rights record. In the light of that, what discussions has the Minister had with the Iranian Government and the UN about upholding the rights of women in Iran?

Tobias Ellwood: The Prime Minister raised that matter at bilateral talks with Iran during the UN General Assembly meeting. They were the first such talks to take place in many, many years. If Iran is interested in moving forward and participating in a more responsible attitude in the region, it is that sort of behaviour that needs to be curbed. We will continue placing pressure on the country to change its ways.

Huw Irranca-Davies: There are massive asks on both the Palestinian and Israeli leadership in taking us to a place where we can have meaningful peace discussions. Will the Minister reconsider his earlier comment that the issue of settlement building was something of a distraction, and that we should not be fixated on it. It is no more a distraction than achieving peace in the region and security for the Israelis.

Philip Hammond: I would like to answer this question, because I know exactly what the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) was trying to say earlier on. The settlements are illegal and building them is intended to undermine the prospects of the peace process. We must not allow that to happen. These are buildings; buildings can be transferred and demolished. Where these buildings are built must not be allowed to define where the final settlement line can go. We must be very clear about that.

David Ward: I very much welcome the comments condemning the illegal settlements, but if the Government’s response to calls for sanctions against Israel is “not yet”, how many additional illegal settlements are required for the answer to be “now”?

Tobias Ellwood: The Foreign Secretary has just made it clear that we do not want the settlement issue to hog the wicket here. We need to focus on the humanitarian efforts. Gaza will face an emergency in a number of weeks when the winter weather approaches. That is a priority. Then we need both sides to come back to the table. That is our focus at the moment, and we do not want to be distracted by the settlement issue.

Phil Wilson: The election results in Tunisia at the weekend are welcome and prove that secular and non-secular parties can co- exist in the middle east. As the Minister has welcomed
	those results, will he let the House know what aid the UK Government can give to Tunisia to ensure that that country becomes a beacon for democracy in the middle east?

Tobias Ellwood: It is right that we again pay tribute to Tunisia for the journey that it has taken. It is operating in a tough neighbourhood, but it is not yet out of the woods, as there are still concerns about jihadist threats and about what is happening on its borders. But the journey it has made is thanks to its strong civil society and its direct approach in wanting to have elections—first parliamentary and then presidential. We are working with it through our Arab Partnership programme. Funding from the Deauville Partnership and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy is helping to support governance in Tunisia.

Robert Jenrick: A transatlantic free trade deal would be a massive win for the UK and the world, but there have been concerns about procurement and health care, among others, that need addressing, and, I believe, debunking. Will the Minister give us an update on progress and consider making a statement on this important issue?

Hugo Swire: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing this, because it is time to slay a lot of urban myths that have crept up around the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. If TTIP goes through, it will mean an economic prize worth up to £400 for each household in the UK, and £10 billion to our economy. If we delve into the details and look at the investor state disputes settlements and so forth, there is absolutely no reason to think that TTIP can undermine the NHS or anything else.

Steve Rotheram: There are accusations that some UK companies are being short-changed on contracts associated with the construction of World cup venues in Qatar, and even claims that some moneys unpaid have been siphoned off to Syria and into the hands of ISIL. Will the Minister urgently look into these allegations and offer support to UK firms regarding their reimbursement by the Qatari royalty, Government or businesses?

Tobias Ellwood: I was in Doha last week and I raised this very issue. Qatar has what is called the kafala system, which is now being upgraded, and the hon. Gentleman may be aware of it. It is being replaced to give greater rights to migrant workers, of whom there are 1.3 million in Qatar, but it is also giving responsibilities to the employers to make sure that they look after them. It is something that will be raised this week when the Emir of Qatar visits this country.

Richard Graham: I welcome the contributions by UK doctors and others to reconstruction in Gaza, but is not the cycle almost bizarre? We fund the United Nations Relief and Works Agency to do valuable work in building schools and homes, the Israeli defence force destroys some of them, and then regularly we pay to have them rebuilt after a long period of argument about whether the cement will be used for the schools or for tunnels. What can we do to resolve this cycle?

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We do not want to repeat this cycle. In six years, we have been round this buoy three times. A different mood is developing. We are picking up the agenda that was arrived at in April with John Kerry. As I mentioned, we had a successful donor conference in Cairo, and there is growing pressure on Israel to come to the table, but also on the Palestinian Authority to show proper leadership in Gaza, and that was reflected in its cabinet meeting there two weeks ago.

Hugh Bayley: I have just returned from Mali, which continues to face real security threats for al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The military commander of MINUSMA says that just 30 bilingual English-French speaking staff officers would make a huge difference to the Malian army’s response to these threats, and the EU training mission says that it needs to continue beyond May of next year. What consideration are the Government giving to increasing our support for the Government in Mali?

Philip Hammond: I have discussed this with my French opposite number and we have made it clear that we will support the French proposal to extend the mandate of the EU training mission in Mali. I am not aware of any request to us to provide further staff officers to the mission, but I will speak to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Anne McIntosh: Would the Government welcome a visit from the Swedish prosecutor if she were to seek to question Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London?

Hugo Swire: My hon. Friend will know that the Swedish prosecutor is, quite rightly, a fiercely independent lady, and independent of the Executive, as she would imagine. These are matters for the prosecutor to decide on, but if she wished to travel here to question Mr Assange in the embassy in London, we would do absolutely everything to facilitate that. Indeed, we would actively welcome it.

Pamela Nash: Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on recent actions he has taken to tackle anti-LGBTI legislation, particularly among our Commonwealth friends?

Philip Hammond: None of my right hon. and hon. Friends is leaping to their feet to give the hon. Lady the detailed answer that she requires, and it would probably be best if I offer to write to her.

Alan Reid: My constituent Bill Irving and six other British citizens are still in India, a year after being taken off their ship. Although they are now out on bail, Billy is effectively trapped in a hotel room and is in financial difficulties because he cannot work. What help can my right hon. Friend give Billy and the other British citizens to speed up the legal process and assist with the hotel bills?

Hugo Swire: They are certainly well represented by their Members of Parliament, whom I have met regularly. I have also raised the case regularly, and at the highest levels, with the Indian authorities, as have other Government Ministers—the Deputy Prime Minister did so in August when he met Prime Minister Modi. We cannot interfere in the Indian legal process, but we continue to press for the case to be resolved quickly, and our consular staff continue to provide them and their families with full consular assistance.

Mr Speaker: The House, and indeed the nation, can now hear from Sir Gerald Kaufman.

Gerald Kaufman: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	Will the Government condemn in the strongest terms the current efforts by the Israeli Government and settler movements to divide the area of al-Aqsa mosque, one of the holiest places in the whole of the Muslim religion? Does the Foreign Secretary concur with the US State Department’s statement last week that Israel is poisoning the atmosphere and making support difficult, even from its closest allies?

Philip Hammond: I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern. Anything that makes it more difficult to reach a peace settlement is extremely unhelpful and we condemn it. We want both sides to work for a sustainable peace. I think that the degree of frustration now being experienced, even among Israel’s closest friends, is expressed by the response he referred to from the United States, hitherto often seen as an uncritical supporter of Israeli actions.

Points of Order

Julian Lewis: rose—

Mr Speaker: We must now make some progress, but not before the jack-in-the-box is satisfied—the hon. Gentleman is bobbing up and down with purpose—and we hear a point of order from Dr Julian Lewis.

Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for that build-up. May I ask whether you have had any notification, either from the Foreign Secretary or from the Defence Secretary, that we will be having a dedicated statement on the ending of the campaign in Afghanistan, because such a statement would give opportunities to pay tribute to the fallen and to the wounded, particularly among hon. Members’ constituents, and to debate issues about the way in which the campaign was fought?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a canny enough fellow to know that he has now, for his own part, substantially achieved his objective, but I know him well enough to know that he will want lots of other colleagues to have comparable opportunities.

Philip Hammond: rose—

Mr Speaker: The Foreign Secretary’s excitement knows no bounds as he seeks to respond.

Philip Hammond: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend raises an important and interesting point. I am sure that Members of the House will want an opportunity to pay tribute to the service and commitment that our servicemen and women have shown in Afghanistan. I will undertake to discuss with the Leader of the House whether such an opportunity could be found.

Mr Speaker: I am very grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that extremely helpful reply.

School Governors (Appointment)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Neil Carmichael: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require that school governors be appointed on the basis of experience relevant to the role; and for connected purposes.
	I would first like to thank all the school governors across the land, because the role they play in ensuring that our schools are well managed, well led and well planned is enormous. The tribute I pay to them is heartfelt. They also contribute massively to local communities, and that, too, needs to be recognised.
	Our schools are going through a changing landscape. There are more schools with increasing autonomy than ever before, and that direction of travel is continuing. That is quite right, because there is support across this House for academy status, and other schools are beginning to benefit from more autonomy. The structures behind those schools are changing as well, with the introduction of the regional commissioners, the changing role of local authorities and, indeed, the emerging debate on academy chains, and that means that governors and governance are becoming increasingly important. Another driver has been the role of Ofsted in focusing on the importance of leadership and governance as part of the inspection process by making the latter category one of the four that will determine whether a school is graded in the way it wants to be.
	Already in Westminster we have seen a large number of actions under the auspices of those who want improved governance across the piece. The Education Committee—I see that its Chair, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), is in his place—has conducted an inquiry into school governance and made a number of recommendations to which the Government have, quite properly, responded. I established the all-party parliamentary group on education governance and leadership almost as soon as I arrived here, with the purpose of talking about school governors and ensuring that their role is properly understood and develops in line with education policy, and that we recruit good governors.
	Another thing that has happened is the Inspiring Governors initiative whereby various organisations have formed an alliance, including the Department for Education, the CBI, employment and education bodies, and a whole range of others. They have come together to make sure that we can promote governance to people who may not necessarily have thought of being a governor before. I am running through this activity to demonstrate that there is a lot of thought behind what I am proposing in this Bill—thought that is underpinned by substantial work. Other bodies that are key for our governors include the National Governors Association, the Wellcome Trust, the School Governors’ One-Stop Shop, and Wild Search. They have all contributed to the wider debate about the role of governors.
	So where do we need to be? First, we want school governing bodies to be flexible. We want them to be able to decide how they are constructed, how they develop their plans, and how they interface effectively with their schools. The need for more autonomy for school governing
	bodies is recognised and required. Strong accountability of head teachers matters. A governing body needs to be able and willing to take on a head teacher who is not delivering—that is absolutely critical. We do not want weak governing bodies; we want strong and supportive governing bodies that are nevertheless capable of making a harsh decision if it ever becomes necessary. Nobody wants to do that without forethought, but the governing body needs to be capable of backing up the decision if necessary.
	We need to make sure that strategic thinking takes place in schools. Governing bodies have to set the scene, the ethos and the direction of travel in making sure that the head teacher and everybody else is aware of the process. It is also important to engage with the wider community. No school can survive successfully without proper engagement in the community, and the governing body is part of that process. An effective governing body is the type of structure with good communication skills that can make the difference in this whole field.
	We also want better links with employers. We must cultivate circumstances in which schools are talking to businesses much more readily and frequently about the requirements that businesses have. If we are going to start measuring the performance of schools by the destinations of their pupils, we need to be clear that schools bear some responsibility in making sure that their pupils know where they can go and where they should go, and are equipped to get there.
	Getting the right people is an important mission. We need to enable employees of businesses to perform on governing bodies if they agree to do so. As the Department for Education has acknowledged, that may require an amendment to the Employment Rights Act 1996, and I would certainly want this Bill to incorporate that. We need to raise the profile of governors so that they can be recognised properly. I include national honours in that, but also civic responsibilities, civic duties and civic recognition.
	Strong chairs of governors are absolutely essential and it is worth considering selecting as chair somebody who was not previously on the governing body. We need to choose the best people, not wait for them to come through the pipeline. We need an accelerated process to enable them to get where they need to be. That needs to be debated.
	We also need to have a rapid response to failing schools. The Government are taking action, but some local authorities are not necessarily doing so as fast as they should be. The introduction of an interim executive board has often yielded good results and turned schools around, but there is no use in waiting for things to get so bad that turning them around is such a big job. We should be acting swiftly. Governing bodies have role to play by recognising when they have themselves lost control and need some outside help.
	I want to suggest some further steps to pave the way. We need pools of tested and proven governors who are
	able to address certain situations. The regional commissioners may well want to consider that suggestion as their role develops during the course of the current reforms. It is important that we have governors to choose from, rather than have to search for somebody who will do the job reluctantly. That is essential for good governance in all areas, certainly in schools.
	We need to think about the transparency of decision making. The more people understand what governors do and the more they see the responsibility they have and how it can make a difference, the better. Transparency of school governing bodies is important.
	A further next step for school governing bodies to take is on the need to be more corporate in how they conduct their affairs. We have already seen that pattern emerge and develop in the further education sector, so I think we should see more of it in the school sector, because it will encourage the sorts of skills, characteristics and processes I have already discussed.
	In short, this Bill would make it easier, more attractive and rewarding to be a school governor, because we want the right people with the right skills, enthusiasm and motives to make sure not only that learning is a school’s top priority, but that its other characteristics can be encouraged and developed.
	Finally, we are enormously thankful to those governors who currently serve, but we need to move to the next stage, which is a new shape for education, with more autonomy and responsibility. That will, of course, be a greater challenge for governing bodies, and that is why we need governors of the calibre I have described.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Neil Carmichael, Alistair Burt, Mr Graham Stuart, Richard Graham, Mr Robert Syms, Sir Alan Beith, Fiona Bruce, Matthew Hancock, Chris Skidmore, Jeremy Lefroy and Robert Jenrick present the Bill.
	Neil Carmichael accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 January 2015 (Bill 109).

Mr Speaker: We will have to delete the name of Mr Hancock, because he now occupies the illustrious post of Minister of State.

Neil Carmichael: You are absolutely right, Mr Speaker, and I don’t know why he is on this list, because he shouldn’t be.

Mark Harper: He’s a great man!

Mr Speaker: He may be a great man—that is a divisible proposition, but what is not a divisible proposition is that he cannot sponsor a 10-minute rule motion. The hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) has enough supporters and he need not trouble his head about the matter any further.

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[8th allotted day]

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Reform (Disabled People)

Kate Green: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the comments of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Reform, Lord Freud, on 30 September 2014 that the work of disabled people is not worth the minimum wage; believes that these comments have further undermined trust among disabled people in this Government’s policies, a trust which had already been damaged by delays in assessments for a personal independence payment, problems with work capability assessments, and the poor performance of policies aimed at helping disabled people into work; further notes that the conduct of Lord Freud had already damaged that trust through his oversight of the housing benefit social sector size criteria which has had a particularly severe impact on disabled people, many of whom have nowhere else to move to and need extra room for medical equipment or carers; and therefore concludes that this House has no confidence in the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Reform; and calls on the Prime Minister to dismiss him.
	I offer the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) who is unable to be in the Chamber today.
	This afternoon, the eyes of millions of disabled people, their families, friends and carers are on this House. They include people such as Ciara, who has a learning disability. I had the pleasure of meeting her in Parliament a few weeks ago. She works full time for Mencap. When she heard of the noble Lord Freud’s remarks about disabled people, she said:
	“People with a disability are often made to feel like second class citizens and face many barriers when trying to receive the same rights as everyone else, especially in employment. Having a politician place further barriers to us being included is incredibly upsetting and frankly quite frightening.”

Graham Stuart: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kate Green: Not yet. No, I will not.
	Ciara continued:
	“I hope politicians realise that people with a disability should be encouraged to become active citizens, and not to be discriminated against for their disability, and I want to call for a full explanation of how these comments are deemed acceptable in this day and age.”
	I hope that this debate will give Ciara some answers.

Graham Stuart: There are 116,000 more disabled people in work now than there were a year ago. Is it not time that the Labour party stopped using the disabled to smear its opponents, and supported this Government’s and Lord Freud’s efforts to get people mainstream jobs, rather than leave them stuck in joblessness or Potemkin factories?

Kate Green: I am astounded by that intervention immediately after I had quoted the concerns of a disabled woman.
	For many months under this Government, disabled people have endured hardship, hostility and fear. They have lived with the consequences of Ministers’ decisions, which are causing them and their families real pain. As things have got worse, they have lost all faith that Ministers understand their lives. They do not believe that the Government are on their side. They have become anxious and despairing, desperate and insecure.
	The remarks of the noble Lord Freud last month that disabled people were not worth the minimum wage sparked an outpouring of anger and outrage. That has prompted this debate today, for those remarks go to the heart of the collapse in trust in this Government among disabled people, not just because they might be thought a plausible statement of Government policy or of what the Government really think deep down—that is what a Freudian slip is, after all—but because disabled people already know from the effect that the Government’s policies are having on their lives that they are not valued by this Government.

Barry Sheerman: Will my hon. Friend use this debate to try to flush out details not just about Freud, but about other aspects of disability, such as the disabled students allowance? Can we find out whether the Government have taken away that allowance or partially put it back? They should have been proud of the fact that every disabled student in this country had the ability to go to higher education, but that has been wiped away.

Kate Green: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. This afternoon, we in this House have a chance to send exactly such messages on behalf of disabled people, as well as to send messages to them. I hope that the whole House will embrace this opportunity to state that we value them as equal citizens, believe we should treat them with respect, recognise the worth and potential of every person, and will not tolerate an attack on their dignity or their rights.

John Howell: Does the hon. Lady accept that overall spending on disability benefits will be higher in the period to 2018 than it was under her Government?

Kate Green: Of course it is right that the benefits bill for disabled people has risen under this Government, but it remains Ministers’ ambition to cut that spend. The former Minister with responsibility for disabled people, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), told me in a written answer on 14 July that the Government were on track to achieve billions of pounds of savings in cuts to the personal independence payment by 2017-18. Ministers need to be clear about whether they are spending more on disabled people or are in practice aiming to cut their benefits.

Helen Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that what is so shocking about Lord Freud’s comments is the simple lack of common humanity and decency in them, which reflects the Government’s attitude to disabled people as a whole? When I have asked questions about work capability assessments or Atos cancelling appointments, the Government simply do not know: they do not choose to find out such information because they do not actually care about it.

Kate Green: That is absolutely right. As I will show later, on several occasions when I have asked Ministers for information about what is happening, the answer has either been that they do not know or that they do not record the information at all.

Iain Duncan Smith: I have known the hon. Lady for a long time, and I am concerned by a charge she is making. Will she explain to the House why, if this matter of the clumsy and offensive words for which Lord Freud has apologised were of concern to the Labour party to the extent it says, Labour waited weeks after it had the recording to bring it forward at Prime Minister’s questions? Surely if Labour Members were so concerned about this—instead of the faux concern they are now showing—they would have raised it immediately and demanded an apology and an explanation. Why did they not do so immediately rather than wait for weeks?

Kate Green: We were so taken aback and stunned by these remarks, and we considered them so offensive and serious, that we considered it right to bring them before the Prime Minister in the highest forum in this land, this Chamber, in the very first Prime Minister’s Question Time that we had the opportunity to do so.

Sheila Gilmore: I want to go back to the question about increased spending. It is unacceptable to boast of increased spending when that is due to inefficiency and the failure to deliver. In 2010, the Office for Budget Responsibility expected spending on incapacity benefit to fall. That projection has now been changed to an increase of £3 billion, which, put against the sort of savings being made on disabled people through the bedroom tax, is absolutely outrageous. Surely nobody can boast about spending more if it is down to their own inefficiency.

Kate Green: My hon. Friend is right.
	As we start the debate this afternoon, let me say that we can send a message of dignity and respect to disabled people in two ways. We can do so by voting for the motion to make it clear that anyone who makes comments that suggest discriminating against disabled people or that demean them should not be in government, least of all in a role in which they make decisions day in, day out that affect disabled people’s lives. We can also show our feelings by the way in which we conduct this debate. The real reason this debate matters so much is that it is an opportunity for us to show disabled people that we understand the reason why Lord Freud’s remarks caused such anger and pain and that we understand what is happening in their lives. Lord Freud’s comments have touched a chord because disabled people are already suffering so much from the policies for which he and his ministerial colleagues are responsible.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I think that the hon. Lady is struggling to make her case. Will she explain why, in 2003, the Labour party had a policy to get rid of the minimum wage for people who had mental health problems?

Kate Green: That was never our policy. Of course programmes exist to support disabled people who are on benefits to get into therapeutic work, but that is not what the noble Lord Freud was speaking about.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to condemn unreservedly the reprehensible comments that were made by Lord Freud at the Conservative party conference, but should we not also condemn his actions? It must never be forgotten that Lord Freud is the chief champion of the bedroom tax, which has condemned two thirds of disabled people to live in poverty.

Kate Green: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this debate is about the Minister’s bedroom tax, which disproportionately affects disabled people and their families, with two thirds of those who are hit being disabled people, their families and their carers. It is about the chaos of the personal independence payment, which is leaving thousands of people without essential support. It is about Ministers’ handling of the work capability assessment and the abject failure of their policies to support many disabled people into work, and it is about the collapse in social care and the services that support people to live the lives that they want. My hon. Friend is right that what this afternoon’s debate is truly about is putting the policies that Lord Freud and his colleagues have been pursuing under the microscope, and understanding what has gone wrong.

Charles Walker: In this place I have campaigned on mental health with people from all parts of the Chamber, including some fabulous people from the Opposition. The one thing that I have learned is that people make mistakes. Sometimes people get it wrong, like Lord Freud did, but they apologise and are allowed to move on. Please will the hon. Lady find some compassion for people who make mistakes and apologise? He is not a bad man.

Kate Green: I have known Lord Freud for a number of years and I agree that, personally, he is courteous and caring. However, his remark touched a deep nerve for disabled people and we have to understand why. It is because it came in the context of the Government’s policies and the effects that disabled people are experiencing.

Ian Lavery: Lord Freud is an intelligent and articulate individual. He knew what he was saying and he meant what he was saying. Does my hon. Friend agree that Ministers, of whatever political persuasion, who make such offensive remarks about disabled people should be kicked out of office immediately, never to return?

Kate Green: I do think that it is difficult for someone who expresses such views to remain in government and in that role.
	Let us examine the policy record of the Government. Let us start with the bedroom tax—Lord Freud’s brainchild. Everyone knows that it is a disaster for disabled people. Many disabled people have lived in their homes for years. They have invested in adaptations, as have their families and local councils. Some people need an extra room for equipment or so that an overnight carer can stay. Some people have a condition that means that they cannot share a room with their partner. Many people are settled in their community, with care and concerned family and neighbours close to hand so that they can
	call for help when they need it. Now they are being forced to move, to cut back on other expenditure to pay the rent or to go into debt.
	We all know of cases in our constituencies, such as that of a disabled grandfather, Paul Rutherford, who cares for his severely disabled grandchild, Warren. Extra space is needed in the family home to cope with all of Warren’s equipment. Paul has to rely on discretionary housing payment to pay the rent. Why should he have to go through the anxiety and indignity of pleading for the support that he and his family need? Have we lost all compassion? Have we lost all sense of people’s dignity?
	Not only is the bedroom tax exceptionally cruel; it is failing to meet its objectives. Only about 7% of those who have been hit by the tax have been able to move to a smaller home. It is not saving the money that the Government said it would, either. Is it not time that Ministers admitted that this Freud tax is not working and got rid of it, as Labour has pledged to do?

Richard Graham: Having served with the hon. Lady on the Work and Pensions Committee, I applaud her commitment to these issues. She made an important point about the tone in which this debate must happen. Does she agree that what matters most is what all of us are doing as individuals and as part of the Government or the Opposition to support people with disabilities to get back into work? In that context, Gloucestershire county council is one of the best rated authorities in the country. Through its Forwards programme, it is working closely with the Government on a Disability Confident event that I am hosting on 14 November, which the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), will attend. Will the hon. Lady join me in saying that that is precisely the sort of thing that we need to do around the country to help people with disabilities to get into jobs and find ways of taking their lives forward helpfully and productively?

Kate Green: Of course, I welcome any initiatives such as those that the hon. Gentleman describes. I am looking forward to hosting a Disability Confident event shortly with my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) in our local authority. However, I think that we need to look a little more broadly than just at what we all do as individuals. It is the collective responsibility of Ministers and the collective policies of the Government that are under examination this afternoon.
	When the Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Reform questions whether disabled people are worth a full wage, does he forget that under his Government, hundreds of thousands of disabled people are right now sitting in queues, waiting to be assessed for the financial support that they should be receiving from the Government? More than 300,000 people are awaiting an assessment for personal independence payment, which is the Government’s replacement for disability living allowance.
	Can Members imagine what it must be like to become disabled as a result of a catastrophic event such as a stroke or a terrible accident; to have to spend a fortune on adapting your home, on transport to get to appointments, on new equipment and on adjusting to
	your new life; to have to give up work and to have less money coming in; for your partner to have to give up work as well to care for you; and then for your PIP award, which should be helping with the additional costs associated with your impairment, to become stuck in an enormous backlog?

Lilian Greenwood: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Kate Green: No, I will make some progress.
	We heard again this morning in Westminster Hall that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), is determined to bring down the waiting times for PIP assessments to 16 weeks. That is welcome, but he should acknowledge that it is a less ambitious timetable than the 12 weeks from application to decision that the Government initially suggested in the PIP toolkit. Meanwhile, disabled people are left high and dry for months. I have constituents who have waited almost a year for an assessment. My constituent, Mr W, has even received compensation for the delay that he has experienced. I was shocked when I asked the Minister how much compensation payments had cost the taxpayer. In a written answer on 20 September, he told me that the Department for Work and Pensions is not bothering to keep a record.
	Most pertinently, when the Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Reform says that the way to get more disabled people into employment is to cut their pay, I point to the failure of a raft of Government policies. The work capability assessment, which was introduced by Labour in a staged manner, was then pushed through by this Government in a botched rush. There is now a backlog: 600,000 cases are awaiting a first assessment. Reassessments have been put on ice altogether. People are waiting for weeks, in some cases with no money at all coming in, for mandatory reconsideration. There is a terrible record of poor-quality decision making and a huge number of cases have been appealed successfully. Just last week, The Independent reported that thousands of people with degenerative conditions are being put in the work-related activity group and denied the support element of employment and support allowance. Can Members imagine the anxiety that that must cause, not to mention the waste of resources?
	At the same time, the number of people being put into the support group overall is rising rapidly. Far from getting people into work, more people are being cast aside by the coalition Government. People are being abandoned, exactly as happened under Mrs Thatcher, when incapacity benefit was used as a means of massaging down the unemployment figures. Of course disabled people who are not able to work must get the support to which they are entitled, but many disabled people could work and would love to work, and they are being truly failed by the Government.
	The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) highlighted the number of people who have moved into work, but he should also acknowledge that the gap between the employment rates of working-age disabled and non-disabled adults remains at a stubborn 30%.

Graham Stuart: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kate Green: No, I will not at the moment, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because I want to finish my point.
	For a while under Labour that gap was closing, but now progress has stalled. The Work programme—the Government’s flagship programme for getting people into work—is totally failing disabled people, getting only around one in 20 into sustained employment. It is worse than if there were no programme at all.
	One year after the last factory closed, 50% of Remploy workers are still without work. The number of people on the Access to Work programme, which helps with adaptations in the workplace to enable disabled people to work, has fallen by 1,800 since 2009-10, and more and more people are reporting difficulty in accessing it. Although last year the DWP claimed that it was expanding Access to Work to cover internships and placements, and that that would benefit hundreds of disabled people, on 9 September the Minister told me in a written answer that he could not provide me with statistics to show how many people had benefited. Meanwhile, the number of specialist disability employment advisers in Jobcentre Plus is down 20% under this Government, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) pointed out, Ministers are cutting the disabled students allowance by upwards of £70 million.

Graham Stuart: This is a difficult area in which to get policy right, and criticisms can be made of this Government and indeed the previous Government. What is the point of personalising this issue when Lord Freud was wrestling with exactly the issue the hon. Lady has just identified? How do we get the disabled into work, and how do we support them? If, because of their severe disability their commercial value is not right, how do we supplement that? That is what Lord Freud meant and I think the hon. Lady knows that. Perhaps she will put that on the record.

Kate Green: I will put on the record that it was not anybody making those remarks but the Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Reform. He is responsible for making decisions that affect millions of disabled people’s lives, and they took deep offence and were hurt by what they heard him say. Those remarks exemplify Government policies that are failing the objective that the hon. Gentleman describes. That is why we think it important to connect Lord Freud’s remarks with wider Government policy.

Jonathan Edwards: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kate Green: I will make some progress as I know that many other colleagues want to join the debate.
	It seems that the Government are happy to accept a waste of potential, and the additional cost of leaving disabled people on benefits year after year is resulting in them spending £8 billion more than Ministers planned. I think we are all agreed: if we—including Lord Freud—want more disabled people in work, as Labour does, there are plenty of policy areas to consider and policies that could be improved before we start to talk of cutting pay.
	We have already come forward with our ideas: to refocus the work capability assessment on its original purpose of helping to identify the package of support
	that a disabled person who could work would need in order to do so; to introduce penalties for wrong or poor-quality assessments by work capability providers; and to ask disabled people to be part of a process of reviewing and improving the WCA, as they have direct experience of it. We know that the Work programme is not working for disabled people. We have said we will replace it with a specialist programme of locally contracted support that will mean that local providers, who have best knowledge of local opportunities, services and other providers, will be able to design holistic support for disabled people, to enable them to prepare for work. Perhaps Ministers will heed our practical suggestions, and most importantly, perhaps they will heed our promise that under a Labour Government the tone of the debate will be different.
	We should all be ashamed that disability hate crime continues to increase, and that disabled people report experiencing a stream of negativity and hostility towards them. Research by Scope last year, one year after this country proudly hosted the 2012 Paralympic games and celebrated our medal winners, found that 81% of disabled people said that attitudes towards them had not improved in the previous 12 months, with 22% saying that things had got worse. Some 84% of those who said that that had happened thought that media coverage of benefit claims and the welfare system had a negative effect on public attitudes.
	I am deeply ashamed that disabled people feel hounded and bullied in our country, and I am angry that DWP Ministers, if not actually using hostile and negative language towards disabled people, are certainly not doing anything to halt it. Indeed, the DWP is promoting it. In one egregious example recently, the DWP press office retweeted a derogatory story about disabled people on benefits that had appeared in the national media. Last month’s remarks by Lord Freud have done yet more damage.

Jack Dromey: Angela Maher, a brave mother battling angina with two disabled sons in my constituency, fell prey to a whispering campaign—“Why is she getting a car on benefits?” It culminated in her severely disabled son having stones thrown at him when he was in his wheelchair. She came to see me the day after the Chancellor’s speech on shirkers and strivers. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely shameful that the disabled should ever in those circumstances be branded as “shirkers”? It is a disgrace that we have a tone that has led to hate crime on the rise once again in 21st-century Britain.

Kate Green: None of us can feel proud when we hear that story. Hon. Members do not have to take my word for the concerns of disabled people. Michaela, a member of Trailblazers, Muscular Dystrophy Campaign’s network of young disabled campaigners, says of Lord Freud’s remarks:
	“I’ve worked since I was 17 to improve, enhance and find full inclusion for those of us living life with disabilities. I’ve worked with a range of charities as a volunteer, pushing for better policies for a range of services, tried to give my voice to the cause and I can honestly say that I do feel more included in society today than ever before…What happened yesterday”—
	she means the day Lord Freud’s remarks became public—
	“has damaged our position. Lord Freud has enforced the idea that we are less productive, less valuable and by definition less human than the rest of society.”
	That is how disabled people feel, and Ministers know how damaging Lord Freud’s remarks have been.
	On 16 October the Secretary of State for Health said on “Question Time”:
	“Well first of all, I don’t defend what he said, those words were utterly appalling.”
	and the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for Employment, the right hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), said:
	“you’re right those words will haunt him. I cannot justify those words, they were wrong.”
	I know Lord Freud has apologised, but the damage has been done—done in deed and in word by the Minister and his Government. Disabled people deserve a clear signal that we know the offence and hurt that Lord Freud’s remarks have caused. This afternoon we can send them a clear message that we will not tolerate such language, and that we value and respect them as equal members of our society. This afternoon, we can vote for the motion before the House, and I ask hon. Members to do so.

Mark Harper: I am very disappointed in the tone of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). This is a cynical debate, and I think my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put his finger on the issue because if the hon. Lady meant what she said about the remarks of my noble Friend Lord Freud, she should have exposed them when she first knew about them. The fact is that the Opposition, right up to and including the Leader of the Opposition, used those remarks as a cynical device to detract attention from the excellent performance of the economy and the 2 million jobs that were created—news that was announced on 15 October but that the Leader of the Opposition did not want the House to focus on. That is what this is about.

Ian Lucas: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Harper: Not until I have at least made some opening remarks.
	The Leader of the Opposition did not want the House to focus on the fact that employment is at record levels or that there has been the largest annual fall in unemployment on record. He did not want the House to focus on the fact that the claimant count had fallen below 1 million or that there had been the largest annual fall on record of youth unemployment. He did not want the House to focus on the fact that long-term unemployment was down, and that there are 400,000 fewer workless households since 2010. That is what this was about—a cynical piece of politics, and the hon. Lady had no answer to the charge of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] She did not, and that will have been exposed to all those watching this debate.

Ian Lucas: Will the Minister confirm that the deficit increased by 10% in the past year?

Mark Harper: Let me focus on the motion before the House—[Interruption.] We have reduced the deficit by a third since the election. The hon. Gentleman does not want us to focus on the record of job creation among businesses in our country, so let us get back to the motion.

Conor Burns: rose—

Mark Harper: Let me make one point, and I will give way to my hon. Friend.
	The motion contains not a single positive idea about improving the lives of disabled people. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston mentioned some ideas in her speech, but she has not troubled the House with any of them in the motion, which is an attack, pure and simple, on my noble Friend. In a moment, I will set out exactly why that charge is not warranted in any way whatever.

Conor Burns: Our noble Friend Lord Freud used clumsy and offensive language and rightly apologised for it. Does the Minister agree that for the shadow Minister deliberately to misinterpret and mislead the House as to Lord Freud’s comments for blatantly partisan advantage and to castigate Government Members who care as much about disabled people as Opposition Members shows the very worst of the House? The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) made a disgraceful speech.

Mark Harper: I agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. The Conservative party has a proud record. When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons held the office that I hold today, he took through the House the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the first Act of its kind. That is a record of which our party can be proud and we do not need to take any lessons from the Labour party. Frankly, the words of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston were offensive. I will deal with the points in the motion, with my noble Friend and with the positive policy proposals and record of the Government, and then I will invite the House to reject the motion.
	The hon. Lady’s words would be a little more credible if there was some evidence that she believed them. Let me set out for Opposition Members, in particular for those who were not in the previous Parliament, some of the history of my noble Friend’s record on welfare reform.

Jonathan Edwards: rose—

Mark Harper: I will set out some of the history before I take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
	It is worth remembering that Lord Freud was hired was by John Hutton, now Lord Hutton, the Labour Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in late 2006 to write a report on radical welfare reform. At that point, Labour thought Lord Freud was an excellent person to involve in the welfare reform agenda. He delivered that reform in March 2007. The right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) then became Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—there was not a lot of appetite for
	welfare reform under him—followed by James Purnell, who was appointed in January 2008. On the second day of his term of office, he appointed Lord Freud to implement the proposals in his report. In the Command Paper, “No one written off: reforming welfare to reward responsibility”, the then Secretary of State, James Purnell, set out the proposals of the Labour Government and made it clear that they were
	“inspired by the reforms proposed by David Freud in his report on the welfare state.”
	The Command Paper made it clear—boasted, in fact—that the Labour Government would implement all of Lord Freud’s reforms and even boasted that they would take the reforms further.
	That is the man whom the Labour party is castigating. Labour brought him into Government to work with them on welfare reform. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) is chuntering from a sedentary position. It is worth the House remembering that he was appointed Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform in January 2008. Between then and October 2008 he served with Lord Freud implementing welfare reform under the Labour party. The right hon. Gentleman knows Lord Freud and that although Lord Freud expressed himself clumsily—he did so, and apologised—the characterisation of those words is simply inaccurate. The Labour party should be ashamed of itself.

Jonathan Edwards: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I fear that he has answered my question before I ask it. It is the same Lord Freud that the Labour party took into the heart of Government. Before his appointment Lord Freud had said that he understood nothing about welfare, so will the Minister explain why the noble Lord played such an important role in implementing and coming up with welfare policy for both the previous Labour Government and the current Conservative Government?

Mark Harper: I will set out some of the things that Lord Freud has done in government, but let me finish on the record of the Labour party, which is worth listening to. Some Labour Members may have to do some rapid rewriting of their speeches.
	James Purnell, when Secretary of State, appointed Lord Freud to work on his proposals. Lord Freud served with the Labour party until January 2009. He then concluded that there was no appetite for radical welfare reform under the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). Lord Freud then joined the Conservative party and our Front-Bench team, of which I was a member at the time, to develop our proposals for welfare reform. James Purnell of course had similar thoughts about the appetite of the Labour party for welfare reform and he resigned from the Government five months later. He called on the Labour party to dump its leader, and thankfully for us the public did so a year later.
	Lord Freud joined us, I have worked closely with him and he is passionate about getting disabled people into work. I know that the travesty of his character that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston set out is unfair and unwarranted.

Kate Green: rose—

Mark Harper: I will take the hon. Lady’s intervention in a moment. It is worth adding that, for his work under the Labour party and under us, Lord Freud has not taken a penny from the taxpayer in salary.

Kate Green: I acknowledge all that the Minister says about Lord Freud’s personal motives, but as a Minister the language that he uses is important. It exemplified what disabled people feel, experience and live in their daily lives. Does the Minister not accept that that is why the remarks of Lord Freud, not as an adviser but as a Minister who takes decisions about disabled people’s lives, have caused so much hurt and offence?

Mark Harper: The hon. Lady knows that Lord Freud’s mistake was to accept the premise of the question. The man who asked the question is the father of a disabled daughter. He was concerned about her ability in the past to get work. It was an honest question asked in an honest way. Lord Freud himself accepts that he expressed himself clumsily and that he had offended people. He apologised for that when the remarks were drawn to his attention. Any reasonable person would accept his apology.

Julian Lewis: I am not an expert in the field, but it has been drawn to my attention that Lord Freud was not the first person to make such remarks, however poorly expressed. The Guardian, back in February 2000, called for an “urgent revision” of the rules on the minimum wage to enable what The Guardian called “low output” disabled workers to be exempt from minimum wage legislation. At the time, Mencap stated that while it otherwise supported the minimum wage, an exemption should be allowed, because:
	“Most people with a learning disability want to work”.
	That was not some terrible statement, but an attempt to get people who cannot be as productive as a fully able person into work where otherwise no job would be offered to them. Cannot hon. Members see that?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend makes a sensible point. That was indeed the policy of Mencap at the time. It has stated that the policy has now changed, but it was Mencap policy at the time. I therefore think that some of the outrage being expressed is not genuine.
	The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston mentioned “Question Time” on which the Secretary of State for Health made some comments. It is worth repeating other comments made on that programme, not by members of the panel but by members of the audience. The Labour MP, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), raised the issue on that programme and I think it is fair to say that she did not get an entirely positive response from the studio audience. One audience member said:
	“I think Angela Eagle is being extremely disingenuous. I think we all knew what he meant, even though he said it clumsily.”
	Another person told her:
	“What you are doing is hypocritical point scoring and it’s disgusting.”
	A final comment, from another young woman, was:
	“I just wanted to see whether you”—
	the hon. Member for Wallasey—
	“would use this as a political football and you have done—thanks Angela.”

Catherine McKinnell: The Minister makes a confused argument. He accepts that Lord Freud has apologised for his comments, but defends them none the less. Surely the problem is the message sent to disabled people such as my constituents who came to see me. They have the most difficult life, and find that, under this Government—they say, “Under this Government,”—they receive abuse walking down the street because of their disability and because one of them receives benefits. The Government should take the stigmatisation of disabled people in this society seriously but they are adding to it.

Mark Harper: I am not defending Lord Freud’s words. I am saying that it is not a reasonable conclusion to pretend that his comments reflect someone who is not fit to be a Minister of the Crown. I think Opposition Members do not really believe that. The motion is a cynical attempt to divert attention from some of the Government’s economic successes.
	Let me set out the details of some of the proposals on which my noble Friend has been working. The House will see that he has improved lives not just for disabled people, but for other disadvantaged people in our country, not just in what he has said, but in what he has done.

John Howell: Does my hon. Friend agree that Lord Freud raised an important question, namely how we help those who want to work but who are faced with the most colossal barriers to doing so?

Mark Harper: That is what Lord Freud did. Many people in the press and broadcast coverage acknowledged that he expressed himself in an unhelpful way, but that he raised a real issue. We need to do more to tackle it. My hon. Friend has a fair reading of the situation.

Steven Baker: rose—

Graham Stuart: rose—

Mark Harper: I will make a bit more progress because other hon. Members wish to speak.
	On Lord Freud’s focus in office, he has been working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and is one of the driving forces behind the introduction of universal credit. That reform will be important in our welfare system for many years. Most of the gains from universal credit will go to those in the bottom 40% of the income distribution. It means that we will be able to look people in the eye and tell them that work will always pay, and that more work will pay for them. It also increases spending on disabled households and enables disabled people to earn nearly £8,000 a year without affecting their universal credit entitlement.
	Opposition Members know that Lord Freud has been at the heart of the Government’s work on understanding how we can provide better employment support to people with mental health problems. Working closely with the Minister with responsibility for care and support, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), he has pioneered the introduction of pilots to test the best ways to support people with mild and moderate mental health problems into work.
	In 2012, Lord Freud drove and penned the foreword to “Untapped Talent”, a guide to employing people with autism produced jointly by the Department for Work and Pensions and the National Autistic Society. Lord Freud said:
	“We need to be clear to employers that making business environments more ‘autism friendly’ is not about meeting corporate social responsibility objectives, but about tapping into and seeking out the most talented individuals for a role…People with autism can have exceptional talents and by making some straightforward adjustments can prove to be a tremendous asset to business. We need to do more to make use of those talents.”
	That sets out his view about disabled people clearly. Any fair and reasonable person would conclude that my noble Friend wants more disabled people in work and has dedicated his time in the Government to ensuring that that can be so.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is doing a tremendous job staying calm in responding to the scandalous opening speech by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). Compounding the cynicism, she tried to make out that discrimination against disabled people is a function of this Government. Is he aware of the 2007 Leonard Cheshire Disability review, which found that 89% of disabled people at that time felt discriminated against in Britain? Conservatives did not try to pin that on the Labour party. For Labour Members to pin that discrimination on us is below them.

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend is right. I see in the Chamber a Member who served as a Minister for disabled people. She will know that, when I shadowed her, my approach was always to work in a consensual and bipartisan manner so that we could do the best for disabled people. I am disappointed that Labour has not reciprocated.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mark Harper: Let me make a little more progress. I am conscious of time and that others wish to speak.
	On the other points in the motion, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston spoke of the personal independence payment. I have been frank with the House, both at the Dispatch Box and in evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee—the Chair of the Committee is in the Chamber—that there are delays and that they are unacceptable. It has been my top priority since being appointed on 15 July to drive those delays down. We are seeing progress in that direction throughout Great Britain, and we will achieve the Secretary of State’s commitment by the end of this year that no one will wait longer than 16 weeks for an assessment.

David Winnick: Is the Minister aware of a case that I referred to the Secretary of State, in which it took a year to deal with an application for PIP? Three days later, my constituent died. His sister said: “Is this the way to treat a person who has worked all his life, paid his taxes and national insurance, and when he needed help, it was not there?” I wrote to the Secretary of State, who has accepted that such delays were unacceptable, but that illustrates what has happened to so many people, not just my late constituent.

Mark Harper: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I said in my opening remarks, and I have said it several times in the House and when giving evidence to the Select Committee, that those delays are unacceptable. That is why I am working tirelessly to ensure we drive them down. Officials in my Department are on the case of the assessment providers on a daily basis. We have people embedded with those providers. I look at the matter continuously to ensure that we drive down those delays further.
	The hon. Gentleman is right that the delays are unacceptable, which is why we are doing something about them. We have more than doubled the number of assessments since the start of the year to more than 35,000 in June and July. There have been further improvements since and we are driving down the backlog. Both assessment providers have increased the number of health care professionals and the number of assessment centres has increased. We have improved guidance and extended opening hours, and our decision makers in DWP have improved their productivity threefold. Importantly, we have fast-tracked claims for people who are terminally ill.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mark Harper: I am spoilt for choice for members of the Select Committee to give way to. I think the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) was first.

Sheila Gilmore: We have heard such assurances for the best part of the past year. Fast-tracking terminal illnesses was promised months ago. Surely the problem is with the policy. At the outset, many people said that it was not necessary to throw the whole thing up in the air and start again, and that the system had not been well thought through. When the Select Committee asked the Minister’s predecessor but two how it would be possible to process so many assessments and reassessments in the time scale given, we were told that there would be no problem, and there has clearly been a major problem. The Government cannot easily sort out the problem, so will the Minister consider whether some of the policy drivers are the wrong ones?

Mark Harper: I have accepted openly that there is a problem with delays in the system, but the hon. Lady will know that the independent review is under way. We have appointed Paul Gray, who has taken evidence and is in the process of compiling his report, which he will give to the Secretary of State in the coming weeks. The report will be published for hon. Members and the Select Committee to review. That is the right way to proceed.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mark Harper: I am going to make progress. Otherwise, nobody else will be able to speak and it would be very boring if everyone was listening to me all afternoon.
	Let me mention the employment and support allowance and the work capability assessment. I was criticised by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston for the work capability assessment. The Government inherited the contract with Atos, which, I should remind hon. Members, was appointed by Labour. It was not a great
	piece of procurement. We inherited a backlog when we came into office. We have made considerable improvements to the process. Hon. Members will know that Atos is exiting the contract early, having paid a financial settlement to the taxpayer. I will announce the results of the process to appoint a new provider in due course.
	The hon. Lady will also know that there have been four independent reviews—Dr Paul Litchfield is undertaking a fifth—and we have implemented more than 75 recommendations. We have made the assessment less mechanistic, with better interactions between the Department and claimants. We have also improved communications and carried out an evidence-based review of the descriptors, which looked at the current assessment criteria along with alternative assessment criteria from disability charities. The findings indicate that, overall, the WCA provides a valid assessment relative to experts’ opinions about people’s fitness for work.
	We have also built on previous changes to how claimants with cancer are assessed to ensure that patients awaiting, undergoing or recovering from cancer treatment are placed in the support group. We have also retained a strong focus on how mental health is assessed, including, for example, through the introduction of mental function champions. We have introduced mandatory reconsideration. The number of people waiting for an assessment has fallen by more than 20% in the last six months, and I want it to continue to fall.

Debbie Abrahams: Can the Minister explain why seven out of 10 people with progressive conditions such as multiple sclerosis or cystic fibrosis are being assessed two or three times? Does he think their conditions will change?

Mark Harper: The hon. Lady will know that the WCA and the personal independence payment are not based on diagnoses of conditions; they are about the impact on somebody’s life. It is also—[Interruption.] Perhaps Members will listen to the reply. It is also worth making sure that people are getting the appropriate help. When someone is assessed the first time, it might be that they are found able to work. If their condition deteriorates and has a larger impact on their life, it is important for us to ensure that they get the help they need for that level of condition, so I think it is perfectly appropriate to reassess people at intervals of up to three years.
	The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston mentioned the spare room subsidy, which this House has debated at great length. The basic issue is one of fairness and treating people in social housing the same as those in private rented accommodation. That was the position that applied under the whole of the last Government, and I am still waiting to hear how Labour plan to fund the reversal of that policy. It is also worth noting that the example she gave, if I heard her correctly, was of somebody who had received support from discretionary housing payments, which are exactly designed for people who need that extra support. I could not quite see what her criticism was.

Kate Green: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to answer that point. The issue about discretionary housing payments, as I know from my own disabled constituents, is the stress and uncertainty of receiving short-term award after short-term award and having to
	apply, then reapply and reapply. I frequently have to intervene with the local authority to ask it to make longer awards. Would it not be fairer, simpler and less costly for those claimants, as well as giving them much greater peace of mind, simply to make an award that recognised their housing needs?

Mark Harper: In preparation for the private Member’s Bill debate, I read through the guidance we give to local authorities on discretionary housing payments, which is clear that it is perfectly open to local authorities to make a long-term award where someone has a long-term condition. That was one reason why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out the amount of discretionary housing payments not just for the current year, but for the year ahead, saying that local authorities could make those awards with the confidence that the money would be available.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mark Harper: I will take one more intervention from my hon. Friend, before setting out some positive policies.

Ben Gummer: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments about discretionary housing payments, because I have had precisely that problem with one constituent who has a long-term condition. He was given an award, which the local Labour-controlled borough council keeps on coming back to him to reaffirm, even though it is within its power to give him a long-standing award. However, it does not do so purely for political reasons.

Mark Harper: I have listened to what my hon. Friend has said. The guidance is quite clear that if authorities think it appropriate, they are able to make a long-term award. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has set out that the funding is available, not just this year but next year, so that they can have the financial confidence to do so. I leave it to others to make a judgment about why authorities might be doing what my hon. Friend says.
	Despite the fact that Labour’s motion, in the name of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, contains not a single positive point about how we could improve the lives of disabled people, let me set out some positive suggestions, which Members can think about as they reject the motion before us. In 2012-13, this Government spent nearly £50 billion on disability benefits and services. Overall spending on benefits will be higher in every year through to 2017-18 than in the 2009-10 financial year, so we are absolutely committed to providing the proper support to disabled people. However, we also want disabled people, where they can, to move into work, to stay in work and to progress in the labour market.
	Of course, the value of work is not just financial, which is one of the points to come out in the debate provoked by my noble Friend’s remarks. One of my hon. Friends pointed out earlier that disability employment had increased by 116,000 in the last year alone, which is very welcome, but there is more to do. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston mentioned the disability employment gap. It is worth saying that the percentage
	of disabled people in employment in Britain is about the EU average. Our gap is higher, but of course that reflects our better performance at getting people into work overall. The gap has remained stable during the recession, but it is still too high. We want to narrow the gap through the range of programmes we have to support disabled people into work.
	Let me say a little about some of those programmes, which include Access to Work. Members of the Work and Pensions Committee will know that on Wednesday I am giving evidence about Access to Work, not only on some of the areas where there have been administrative issues, which we are fixing, but on some of the changes that I hope we can make in the months to come. We said in 2012 that we would invest a further £15 million in the scheme, which we have. In 2013-14, more than 35,000 people were helped by Access to Work, which was 5,000 more than in the year before. It is a valuable scheme; I want to try to make it less bureaucratic and more successful.
	The Work programme, which has already been mentioned, is designed to help people at risk of becoming long-term unemployed. Of course, employment and support allowance claimants are required only to prepare for work, rather than having any more conditionality, but providers have developed innovative approaches to support those with significant barriers to work, and one in 10 of the more recent ESA new claimants has had at least three months of work in the first year of the programme. Work Choice supports disabled people with more severe disabilities, with support tailored to individual needs. In 2013-14, more than 20,000 people started on Work Choice, with more than half achieving a sustainable job outcome.
	Let me say a little more about mental health conditions and the conditions people have that prove a barrier to getting into work. I do not pretend that we have by any means solved the problems for those with physical health conditions—there is more to do—but the biggest gap is for those with mental health conditions, just under half of whom are in work. The figure for those with learning disabilities is around a quarter, while for those with some other hidden impairments, such as autism, it is only 15%.
	This Government are doing a great deal on improving the performance on mental health. I have set out some of the things that my noble Friend Lord Freud has brought forward, but we have also made significant announcements about our mental health policies. The Deputy Prime Minister has set out a number of changes, which will come into force from next April, on the national health service’s performance on making talking therapies available more quickly. He has also set out the pilots that will be run to improve waiting time standards. This Government are stepping up the action we are taking on mental health that will enable people with mental health conditions to get into work.
	Finally, on our employment programmes, I want to mention the Disability Confident campaign, which, as Members will know, the Prime Minister launched last year. It is about giving employers the confidence to employ disabled people. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who is no longer in his place, referred to the event he is holding on 15 November—which I will be very pleased to attend—to promote employers in the Gloucestershire area hiring
	more disabled people. Such events are going on all over the country—the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston said she would be holding one. I have written to every Member of the House and would urge everyone to hold an event to demonstrate practically to employers that if they wish to hire disabled people, the help and support is there to ensure that they can do so.
	In conclusion, this debate is cynically motivated. It is not about what Lord Freud said. The Labour party knows that he is a man who cares passionately about getting disabled people into work. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who was Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform in the last Government, worked with him and knows that to be the case. He inspired—in the words of the then Secretary of State—their welfare reforms. Everyone has seen through this debate, which is about trying to draw attention away from the success of our long-term economic plan and the creation of 2 million jobs. I have set out some of the Government’s positive policies to ensure that disabled people can live independent lives and that as many as possible of them can stay in or move into work. I am proud of our record.
	I draw a different conclusion from that of the Labour party about these events and how Members have conducted themselves. Labour’s handling of this issue and its lack of a credible economic policy prove that it is not fit to govern this country. I urge the House to concur in that view by rejecting this cynical motion.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. A great many hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, as a consequence of which, I have had to impose a six-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. However, we are about to hear a maiden speech, so the House will understand why I have decided that the limit should apply after the first two speeches from the Back Benches.

Liz McInnes: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech during this debate.
	I start by paying tribute to my predecessor, Jim Dobbin, whose sad death brought about the recent by-election in my Heywood and Middleton constituency. Jim was a much loved and respected Member of Parliament. He was held in high regard by his constituents and, I would hope, by every Member in this House. It is significant to this debate that Jim’s very last vote in Parliament was a vote against the bedroom tax.
	Jim and I had a career in common; we both worked as health care scientists in the NHS prior to being elected to Parliament. We both plied our trade at the Royal Oldham hospital, which provides health care to my constituents. Many of my NHS colleagues have fond memories of Jim. Indeed, the laboratory that, until recent events, provided me with gainful employment, bears a distinctive foundation stone, dated 5 September 2005, and it was laid by Mr Jim Dobbin, MP and Fellow of the Institute of Biomedical Science. I am immensely proud to have been given this opportunity to continue the great work of my predecessor and to carry on the tradition of health care scientists at the Royal Oldham hospital making a contribution to Parliament.
	I wish also to pay tribute to the previous MP for this seat, which was created following boundary changes in 1983. I am talking about Jim Callaghan, not the Labour Prime Minister from 1976 to 1979, but his namesake, fondly known as “Gentleman Jim”, who is still resident in Middleton.
	My constituency of Heywood and Middleton comprises those two former mill towns, along with the large village of Norden, the former mill town of Castleton and the more affluent Bamford. The constituency is one of those that make up the metropolitan borough of Rochdale. The M62 motorway separates the constituency, with Middleton to the south sitting along the Rochdale canal. Middleton has given us an eclectic bunch of artists: comedian Steve Coogan grew up there, and indie band, the Chameleons all came from Middleton.
	A lesser known fact about Middleton is that the local newspaper, the Middleton Guardian, gave the shadow Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) his first job as a journalist—a fact he recalled with great pride when he recently visited the excellent Peterloo medical centre in the constituency. The medical centre is so named in tribute to another of Middleton’s famous sons, Samuel Bamford, the radical social reformer who led the Middleton contingent to the ill-fated Peterloo massacre.
	Middleton is also home to the John Willie Lees brewery, a traditional family firm that has been established for 186 years and provides employment to over 1,000 people, plus an excellent apprenticeship scheme, which offers real jobs at the end of it. John Willie Lees also has a family connection for me, as my mother ran two Lees pubs in the ’80s and I spent many weekends and evenings on what many would see as the wrong side of the bar, serving pints and hopefully good cheer in equal measure. In those days it was all electric pumps, and I am glad to see that John Willie Lees has now returned to hand-pumped beer. It even still makes mild, a traditional Northern brew that I thought had all but died out, but now seems to be enjoying something of a resurgence. I believe that it might be available here in the south now, and could even be considered to be ever so slightly fashionable.
	Heywood sits in the centre of the constituency on the River Roch. It used to have cotton as well as mines, although now it has neither. Amongst its famous daughters are the singer Lisa Stansfield and Julie Goodyear, also known as Bet Lynch from “Coronation Street”. Heywood is home, too, to the Queen’s park, which, in 2010 was voted the nation’s favourite green space, bringing immense pride to the people of Heywood. The park was presented by Queen Victoria in 1879 and still features some fine original structures such as the magnificent Victoria fountain.
	The park was revitalised using funds awarded by the council and by the Heritage Lottery Fund; over £l million was spent on its restoration. In 2007, it was given green flag status and an excellence award from the national Civic Trust. Lovingly cared for by the friends of Queen’s park, it provides an excellent recreational and community facility.
	Returning to the subject of this debate, Heywood and Middleton is the home of “Middleton, Heywood and Rochdale against the Cuts”, an active and vocal campaigning group, which highlights and speaks out against austerity measures that affect the most vulnerable in our communities. Certainly during the campaign
	period prior to the by-election, I encountered many disabled residents who struggled with the bedroom tax. I welcome this debate, which provides an opportunity to discuss the adverse effects of some of the Government’s policies.
	I was particularly concerned by the plight of one disabled gentleman I met who was deemed to be in possession of a spare room. In this room, he kept equipment to enable him to manage his condition. Additionally, the room provided a place for his wife to sleep in on the frequent occasions when he had disturbed nights. Under the so-called “spare room subsidy” he was paying £14 a week for this room, which the family could ill afford. Sadly, he is not the only one of my constituents affected; unfortunately, he is one of many. Although I was not here to vote on the bedroom tax, I look forward to voting on the Affordable Homes Bill when it comes before Parliament.
	I am informed that a maiden speech should not be too political—I may well have picked the wrong debate to make my speech—so I will wind up here and thank Members for their polite attention and you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to make my contribution.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Speaker: We are extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. We enjoyed her speech, and we will now hear from Sir George Young.

George Young: I begin by warmly congratulating the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) on her maiden speech. We all welcome her first contribution to debates in this Chamber. She spoke with warmth about Jim Dobbin, whom we remember with affection, and she obviously knew him well. She took us on a guided tour of her constituency. She spoke with confidence, humour and insight, and she clearly has a contribution to make, specifically on health matters. I would have visited her constituency during the by-election, but I was otherwise detained in Clacton. We look forward to hearing many future contributions from the hon. Lady.
	I believe that this motion is opportunistic and misguided. I do not think that it furthers the interests of those with a disability or the organisations that care for them. The reaction of the audience at “Question Time” the week before last showed a distaste for the political opportunism that we have seen this afternoon. I am genuinely surprised that the Opposition did not learn the lesson from that reaction before they chose the subject of this debate and launched their highly personalised attack on a man who, as we have just heard, has done so much to advance the cause of those who have a disability. If I were charitable, I would say on listening to the mover of the motion, that I do not believe her heart was in it.

Andrew McDonald: As the father of two disabled children, I found the remarks grossly offensive, as did every member of my family and my community.

George Young: I do not doubt for one moment what the hon. Gentleman has just said, but I have not received one e-mail, one letter or one comment from one of my constituents about those remarks.
	Of course there are times when there are policy disagreements on how best to enfranchise those with disabilities, be they physical or learning disabilities, and of course we should always be careful about the language that we use—as the former Prime Minister discovered when he referred to someone as a bigot. However, during the 40 years I have been in the House, I have been struck by the degree of consensus on how best to proceed with policy on disability, and I honestly do not believe that the exchange at the party conference justified the outbreak of partisanship that we have witnessed this afternoon.
	Let me pick out two pieces of legislation relating to disabled people. The ground-breaking Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 started as a Private Member’s Bill, promoted by Alf Morris, and reached the statute book with Conservative support just before the 1970 election. Later in the 1970s, one of the first Bills whose Committee stages I attended introduced a non-contributory invalidity pension, which was the first of a new generation of benefits that replaced earnings for those unable to work.The other piece of legislation, which was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, is the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which introduced a new right to non-discrimination in employment and which had all-party support. By and large, the House has made progress, driving forward the agenda, when we have been able to reach a consensus.
	The objective that I hope we all share this afternoon was put well by Nicholas Scott in 1992, when he was Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. He said then:
	“There is no difference of opinion in the House about the ends that we seek: the integration of disabled people, their independence and their participation in a range of activities, including employment, the securing of proper housing, recreation and sport. Above all, we want them to have control over their own lives.”—[Official Report, 31 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 1251.]
	I think that that is as valid today as it was then.
	The thrust of policy under all parties has been to remove the obstacles that prevent someone with a disability from enjoying the same quality of life as someone without that disability. That has involved Government action, including action by my party.

Stephen Lloyd: I strongly support what my right hon. Friend is saying, and the tenor of it. As one who was involved in lobbying for the Disability Discrimination Act outside the House all those years ago, may I ask whether he agrees that a key part of disability empowerment is the Government’s Access to Work scheme? I should add, to be fair, that it was introduced by the then Government. It is very important for every penny that can possibly be invested in access to work to be invested, because it is a route that enables many people with disabilities to be helped into work.

George Young: I agree with my hon. Friend, and in a moment I shall say a little about how more disabled people can be helped into work.
	Over the past 40 years, there has been Government intervention to achieve the objectives that I have identified. We have the mobility allowance, which can sometimes
	be converted into the Motability scheme, and we have the disabled facilities grant. Both parties have used building regulations to make public buildings, in particular, more accessible to people with disabilities.
	Let me now deal with the specifics. I shall try to adhere to the six-minute time limit, although it does not apply to me. We all want disabled people to have the sense of fulfilment, independence and comradeship that goes with having a job. My noble Friend Lord Freud was asking a genuine question, namely “How can we intervene in the market to enable everyone to work if some people work at a slower rate than others or need more supervision?” It was a genuine question, and we have not heard an answer to it from the Opposition today.
	The debate then moved on to the minimum wage, in respect of which there are a number of exemptions, including one for company directors. During the meeting that took place at the conference, one delegate said that he had got round the minimum wage provision for his daughter by making her a company director, but that is a rather protracted and complex solution, which not everyone can adopt. What my noble Friend was trying to do was establish whether there were other solutions that would enable the same objective to be reached.
	There is no dispute about the direction of social policy on those with disabilities, and I am not aware that the Opposition plan to repeal the measures that we have had to introduce in order to contain public expenditure. The speed with which we move in the direction in which we all want to move depends on getting the economy right. As with the national health service, so with support for disability: we need a strong economy if we are to take the agenda forward. No one has a greater interest in the success of the Government’s economic policy than those with a disability.
	I think that the motion should be withdrawn, but if it is not withdrawn, it should be defeated, because it is an unwarranted personal attack. No alternative approach to disability has been advocated, and it risks breaking a bipartisan approach to disability that has served those with a disability well for the last 40 years.

Siobhain McDonagh: I shall take this opportunity to give three examples from my constituency of brave women who are directly affected by the Government’s changes and welfare reforms, and also to identify the things that I think we need to do if we are to take a bipartisan and House-wide view of the issue of getting people with disabilities back to work. First, we need to provide access to basic facilities in public buildings, especially jobcentres. Secondly, we need flexibility, because that is what enables us to get disabled people back to work, and we need to make those people less risk-averse. Thirdly, we need to understand the law of unintended consequences. That applies particularly to regional differences relating to the bedroom tax.
	My first example involves Becky Weston, who has cerebral palsy. She also has a hole in her bladder, and she needs access to a toilet. She was invited to visit Mitcham jobcentre for a benefits review. She phoned the jobcentre to explain that when she arrived there, having taken the bus, she would need to get to the toilet. When she arrived, she was angry, upset and distressed:
	she needed the toilet. Many of us will know that feeling. She asked to use the toilet, and she was refused. She was asked, “Are you threatening me that you will pee on the floor if I do not let you use the toilet?” Of course, that is exactly what happened.
	I do not tell this story to embarrass anyone—myself, other Members, or the people at Mitcham jobcentre who do a hard job in difficult circumstances—but how do we expect people with disabilities to turn up a jobcentre where they cannot use a toilet? We would not allow that of an employer, so why do we allow it in our own services? Becky was greatly distressed that she was allowed to go home on the bus in such a condition. Even a modicum of compassion was not exercised in that instance. I suggest that Ministers consider what facilities are available if we want people to turn up at our jobcentres.
	Let me now deal with the issue of flexibility. People who are disabled and on benefits often become risk-averse, but once they are on benefits and in the system, they can keep going. Life is not easy, but to risk losing benefits threatens huge distress. Only last night, Merton Centre for Independent Living gave me the example of a woman who had arrived at the centre with mental health problems and physical disabilities. She was in the employment and support allowance support group. She had been an art teacher in better days, and she wanted to volunteer: she wanted to give something back to the community. She felt that if she could manage that, perhaps she could then get into work. The centre’s staff helped her, gratefully and thankfully. They realised that she had no computer skills, and was unlikely ever to get a job without them in this day and age, so they sent her on a course.
	When the woman phoned the jobcentre, she was immediately taken off ESA, and told that she was doing voluntary work without permission. Her benefit has been suspended, and she will have to appeal. Her housing benefit has been stopped, so her rent arrears have increased. She has now decided that she will never try to help herself again, because by doing so she has only brought distress and misery on herself.
	The final case that I shall cite involves unintended consequences. I have known Jeanette Townley for more than 30 years. She is an extraordinary woman, whom most female Members would love to have as their friend. She has two sons. The first was in the Army, and the second, Philip, has Down’s syndrome. She has cared for him brilliantly. As happens in many cases, when she had a disabled son, her marriage broke down. She moved into a three-bedroom house on St Helier avenue over 22 years ago. Her eldest son has now left and joined the Army. She is in a two-bedroom house with her son Philip, who is 29 years of age. She receives carers allowance and maintenance from her ex-husband, and this is topped up with income support. Her income is £106 a week. Philip gets DLA middle rate care and ESA. Their household has to contribute £72 a month to keep and stay in their house—not that they have any alternative, because, as every London Member knows, there are no two-bedroom homes to be had, as that is the number of bedrooms that is most in demand.
	Jeanette would move. She does not want to move because she has great neighbours who care for Philip if she is not there; she has a brilliant GP who knows how to handle Philip; and, God help us, when Philip is in
	distress the movement of the traffic up and down the main road she lives on gives him comfort. However, she would move to save that £72 per month.
	How can it be right that we undermine Jeanette in her caring role, a bright clever woman who would have had a better life and more opportunities if she did not have Philip as her son? She does not wish him not to be her son. She spends every day caring for him. Do we want to undermine the limited financial means of such women? I do not believe anybody in this House wants that, and we need to do something about it.

Paul Maynard: Whenever I deal with disability issues, I always feel I have to make a particular effort to look beyond the label of a person’s disability, so as to see the person for who they are and not just their condition. In many ways, it is the same when I am sitting in this Chamber: I have to look to see the people for who they really are, and not judge them by their partisan labels. It is a challenge in politics to realise that we are actually all here because we want to make this country a better place. We may disagree about how to go about that, but we all share that common idea. It is why we enter public life. It is why we welcome a new Member today, the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), whose maiden speech was excellent. As I try to do that, however, I occasionally feel personally let down. I have thrown away my speech because I want to explain why I feel so personally let down by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), and her comments on disability hate crime in particular.
	After I was elected to this House, early on in my constituency surgeries I had a number of very upsetting cases of disability hate crime. It is clearly a very big issue across the country as a whole. Nationally, there have been some very tragic cases. There has clearly been significant under-reporting of disability hate crime over a decade or more under Governments of all persuasions. I quickly realised that we needed to create spaces in which people felt able to report disability hate crime, because I wanted more people to have the confidence to report it. When I see the number of reported disability hate crimes going up, I take no satisfaction in that—certainly not—but I see that we are creating an arena in which people feel confident to talk about it, and I find it deeply personally upsetting when that is used as a stick to beat the Government with, because I have done so much work to try to create that space where people can have that confidence.
	That is why this whole debate is so frustrating to me. I have not heard the answer to the question the father of the young lady with the learning difficulty was asking Lord Freud. I do not know what the Labour party’s answer is. I wish we could all leave this Chamber and go to the Upper Waiting Hall, where we all might learn something from the display by United Response. Many disabled people have sent postcards expressing what they aspire to and what they want to be able to do in this country, because it is their country, too.
	This is not a matter of our somehow deciding whether disabled people are able to work or not. If they want to work, we as a nation should be enabling them to do so.
	How we best achieve that is a deeply complex public policy issue. I do not believe they should be paid less than the minimum wage. My own personal preference is the model operated in Denmark, which uses a series of wage incentives to top up what employers are willing to pay, but that is just one of a whole host of options. The tragedy of the attitude that the shadow Minister has shown today in the Chamber is that she has sought to close down that public policy debate—she has sought to close down that consensus.
	As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), all the great advances in the interests of disabled people have come about when there has been consensus in this Chamber—when the parties have worked together to advance the interests of the most vulnerable in our community. It is entirely right that if people want to work we should be willing to make that happen, because where there is poverty of expectation—and that is what I almost sense from the Opposition Benches—that automatically translates into poverty of opportunity.
	All of us have a responsibility for what we say. I am glad that Lord Freud has made it clear that his comments were not appropriate, but the key thing to remember is the goal we have. Only 10% of people with a learning disability are in employment. That is far, far too low. I would rather we spent a few hours in this Chamber discussing how we might increases that, and I am happy to give the Labour party ideas for its manifesto since it seems to need them so much.
	We only need look at, for example, some of the ideas that Scope has been coming up with. It is great to get people into work, but we have to enable them to stay in work. I am sure that, like me, Opposition Members have had people coming to their surgeries saying that they are in work, that they are struggling to stay in work and that they need some more flexible form of what is now being called adjustment leave. I think that would be an excellent step forward because it would give individuals greater flexibility in coping with their fluctuating conditions—they may have a good day or a bad day, and they may be working in an environment where that does not always work out quite so well with the employer. Adjustment leave is one idea to address that.
	The Labour party continually campaigns about living standards. Well, here is a great idea for it: look at the costs of equipment for the disabled—look at the Office of Fair Trading reports on the cost of powered wheelchairs and the fact that even a set of cutlery for a young man with cerebral palsy can cost £31. There is so much more we could be talking about in this Chamber on a consensual basis to make lives better for disabled people, and what a tragedy—what a waste—that we are going back to politics again today.

Anne Begg: It is a great pleasure to follow the new Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), and I add my congratulations to her on her maiden speech.
	Let me make clear how many disabled people across the whole of the United Kingdom are feeling just now: they are feeling beleaguered; they are feeling that they are being asked to pay for the mistakes of the bankers
	and bear the brunt of the austerity measures. Regardless of whether Members on the Government Benches believe that themselves, they must understand that many disabled people are feeling that. They feel that a lot of the Government’s welfare reforms are less about reform and more about saving money, and because of that particular atmosphere many of them are feeling that somehow everything that is being done with regard to welfare reform is landing on their doorstep. I therefore make the plea I have made umpteen times before: because we do not know the full impact these reforms have had on disabled people, will the Government carry out a cumulative impact assessment?
	We have asked for that time and again. It would at least begin to quantify for individual families the money they are losing as a result of these reforms. At the moment, there is mention of them losing £2 here or £8 there or that they are experiencing a few extra difficulties in accessing funds or support. Unless we actually look at how each of these changes is impacting on each individual family, we are never truly going to understand why they feel the way they do and the consequences of that.
	It is not just the changes to the obvious benefits that affect disabled people. There are changes to benefits that are aimed particularly at them: the changes from incapacity benefit to ESA, and the move from DLA to personal independence payments and Access to Work, which the Minister mentioned. As he said, he will be appearing in front of my Committee tomorrow morning. Those benefits are obviously targeted at disabled people, but there are others, including jobseeker’s allowance, that are aimed at those who have gone through the work capability assessment and been found fit for work even though they have major health problems. Those people find themselves on jobseeker’s allowance. There is also housing benefit, and we have all heard about the bedroom tax. All these arrangements disproportionately affect disabled people. In jobcentres, there are not enough disability employment advisers. My Select Committee found out that there was one for every 600 claimants, but I understand that the figure is nearer to 900. The Work programme is not delivering as it should for disabled people.

Mike Kane: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) mentioned one of my predecessors, Alf Morris, who introduced the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. That Act was described as the Magna Carta of legislation for disabled people. It was the first piece of legislation in any nation anywhere in the world to recognise the rights of disabled people. We on this side of the Chamber are angry because we feel that that disability agenda is being set back by this Government’s policies. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is what is happening?

Anne Begg: I do, and that is certainly how many disabled people feel. One of Alf Morris’s great achievements was the Motability scheme. He used to joke that the only organisation that had more vehicles than that scheme was the Chinese red army. I benefited from having a Motability car when I was a student—I was among the first to get one—so I understand from a
	personal point of view how important those changes were and how long and hard the fight has been to persuade the people that disabled people deserve opportunities, support and help.
	One of the main ways in which disabled people are helped into work is through the Work Choice programme. It is the only specialist disability employment programme in existence, and it sits outside the Work programme. One would expect the people on the Work Choice programme to be in receipt of disability benefits, but that is not necessarily the case. I have visited the two Work Choice providers in Aberdeen, and almost all the people there are on jobseeker’s allowance. Yes, they have disabilities or ill health problems, but they are not the most severely disabled people. That is one of the problems: the very programme that was meant to help those with the most profound disabilities is helping those who are less disabled—albeit successfully; the Minister quoted the results.
	The opportunities for supported employment or sheltered employment, both of which Government Members have put forward as answers to the problem, have decreased. We have not yet seen the redeployment of the Remploy money into helping people into supported or sheltered employment. The crux of this debate is the fact that there is still a need for such support to allow those with the most profound disabilities to get into work.
	Another big problem, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), relates to people with progressive illnesses being stuck in the work-related activity group. My Select Committee looked into the workings of the employment and support allowance and the work capability assessment, and we found that the work-related activity group had become the default destination for everyone, and that the system was therefore not working as efficiently as it should. People who are neither too ill nor too well, who are disabled but not too disabled, or who are on a trajectory towards either getting better or getting worse will not qualify for jobseeker’s allowance at one end of the spectrum or for the ESA support group at the other. Those people will end up in the work-related activity group. That includes people with progressive illnesses, who face conditionality and even sanctioning. That illustrates an element of the design of the ESA that is fundamentally wrong.
	The crux of the matter is that the Government have tried to implement too much welfare reform too quickly. They have forgotten the lesson that these matters are incredibly complicated. There are always unintended consequences, and it always takes far longer than anyone anticipates to implement the changes. That is why disabled people are feeling so aggrieved: they feel that no one is listening.

Jackie Doyle-Price: There are times when we debate issues in this House with maturity and sensitivity, and I am pleased that, since the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) sat down, that has been the case today. No one could fail to have been moved by the examples given by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), or by the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who is no longer
	in his place. The reality is that, if we want to make a difference, to fix the ills of our society and to make Britain the best it can be, we need to show more maturity in debating these issues.
	Unemployment for people with disabilities exceeds 50%. Among those with severe learning disabilities, the figure is more than 90%. Many of those people want to work, and I would expect every Member to want to see those unemployment rates fall. When we tackle youth unemployment through apprenticeships, we concede that it is legitimate for employers to pay less than the minimum wage and for the Government to give support to employers, so why can we not consider doing that for people with disabilities? We owe it to them to think constructively about what more we can do to give employers a greater incentive to give people with disabilities a chance. The truth is that the minimum wage acts as a barrier to employment when an employer judges that the amount they have to pay exceeds the value being added by the employee. It is surely self-evident that we should try to identify what we can do to eliminate that barrier. I am not talking about people being worth less; I am talking about making practical interventions to fix a problem.
	The fact is that we, as politicians, need to deal with the world as it is, not how we would like it to be. If we want to achieve the outcomes that we have been talking about today, we need to reflect the real world. We need to work with employers to see what more we can do to encourage them to be more ready to employ those with disabilities. Simply to sit on the sidelines and whip up hysteria about the minimum wage will quite simply fail those people. What is needed is a mature debate about what more we can do in this space.
	Lord Freud is an honourable man who has done more to support people with disabilities than many of the members of rent-a-mob who have leapt on his words with synthetic anger. His only offence was one of sloppy language. Who in this House is always completely accurate in their use of language? Who in this House has never made a mistake? The way in which Labour Members have inflamed this row has shown them at their holier-than-thou worst. They like to pretend that my party is the “nasty party”. Well, I will tell them what is nasty. It is distorting the comments of a decent honourable man and using people with disabilities as a political football with which to beat the Government. Shame on them!
	If there is a good thing to come out of this unhappy episode, it is that the public saw it for what it was: a shameless piece of political opportunism. We wonder why people are turning away from politics. This is a perfect example of why they are doing so. Politics should be about ideas and principles. Politicians should be about leadership, not about simply being weathervanes. Today’s politicians are too scared of saying anything that might be construed as politically incorrect, or of saying anything that could be taken out of context to write a headline. The result is that politics is becoming bland, managerial and utterly uninspiring. It is failing to deliver.
	This is a perfect example of an issue that we should be debating in a more grown-up manner. If we do not talk about the world as it is in a mature way, there are
	others who will fill the gap. The fact is that the quiet majority of people out there are very reasonable. They are not stupid—far from it. Any politician who takes them for fools will pay the price. The public have judged that Lord Freud was well-intentioned. Labour Members can use their friends in the metropolitan media and the charities to try to score a political advantage, but they will be the ones who suffer next year at the ballot box.
	Success in politics is not measured by how much of a hoo-hah we can generate on Twitter. It is measured by delivering on our policy objectives. Our objective is to give those with disabilities the opportunity to work if they want to, and no amount of political haranguing by the party opposite will stop us on this side of the House focusing on the real challenge. If Labour Members have not got anything constructive to say about this issue, frankly they should shut up.

Anne McGuire: I am delighted to be called, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am not going to shut up. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) and I serve on the Public Accounts Committee, so she knows that neither of us are prone to shutting up when the issues are important.
	I agree with the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who has just left, that a bipartisan approach has been the best way to move the agenda forward for disabled people. We have to be careful, however, not to rewrite history. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was actually a hard-fought campaign. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) was one of the champions of that debate. I give credit, as I have on more than one occasion, to the Leader of the House, who, in the teeth of opposition from the Conservative party and with the support of the then Prime Minister, John Major, helped to manage this House to a position where it accepted the claims and the campaigns of disabled people, including the campaign conducted by my right hon. Friend. So we should not rewrite history, but there has previously been a bipartisan approach.
	The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), was part of that when he was my shadow and accepted the basic tenets of the 2005 report published by the Prime Minister’s strategy unit on improving the lives of disabled people. That report challenged us all to examine how we accepted our responsibilities to break down the barriers preventing disabled people from fulfilling their potential in education and employment, and to encourage them to make an active contribution to their local community. Work was the cornerstone of that new agenda. But a statement of a right to work does not in itself deliver the right to work, and we need to be clear that the right to work for disabled people has been further undermined by the failure of this Government’s employment programmes to deliver the necessary support for disabled people. They can brush it off, but the Work programme is seen by many disabled people as inflexible, baffling and little more than going through the motions.

Tom Clarke: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her kind remarks. Is she aware that only a few weeks ago
	Citizens Advice Scotland published a compelling document detailing case study after case study on the issues she is raising? Does she agree that that is important to this debate?

Anne McGuire: Let me hark back to the comments made by the hon. Member for Thurrock and say that it is not some weird conspiracy of charities, Labour politicians and disabled people that is creating the environment where people are suffering because of the ways in which the Government have carried forward their employment programme.
	I congratulate our two Labour Front Benchers today, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), because they have recently put on the record how the Labour party would devolve responsibility for some of the support for disabled people, taking a new approach and ensuring that it is more locally based within the employment market. We need to ensure that the new approach of our party is not top-down; if we do not involve disabled people in the planning and development of programmes that have an impact on their lives, we will have lost our way. I am sure that we will take forward that particular model of involvement of disabled people.
	The Minister made great play of the talk about cynicism. May I say that disabled people have for the past four years been the subject of the most cynical campaign in modern social political history? They have been subject to a campaign that vilified them from the beginning. It started with a premise that disability benefits were the subject of widespread fraud and that, by definition, disabled people were cheating the system. It progressed by plucking an arbitrary figure—some 600,000—out of the air and saying those people would lose their benefits. It ended with a mess, where disabled people no longer know what benefits they will get, how long it will take to get a decision and whether they can apply in the first place. The Minister is a nice person but it takes some brass neck to come to this House, acknowledge there is a problem, forget that the Government created the backlog and then try to take the credit for reducing the very backlog that their policies have made happen. I hope that he will reflect on what he said.
	Let me deal briefly with Lord Freud’s comments, because they show just how much we have lost in the past four years. The fact that the Government’s Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Reform thought that some disabled people could work for £2 an hour was not just a “mis-speak” but was more attributable to a mindset. No amount of apology from the noble Lord could disguise the fact that not only did he “mis-speak”, but his comments challenged a vision that disabled people thought they had agreed with us: that they can work where possible and they should be treated equally in that regard. If we start to finesse the payment for work, where will this stop? A minimum wage is a minimum wage is a minimum wage; the Government cannot start to segment it.
	I felt desperately sad when I read Lord Freud’s comments. I want to say to him that rights cannot be traded. They are not given but are intrinsic to us all as members of a democratic society. Lord Freud showed by his crass “mis-speaking” that he has failed to understand that,
	and, as such, he should have had the integrity to resign. As he failed to do that, the Prime Minister definitely should dismiss him.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. It will be obvious to the House that a large number of Members wish to speak and limited time is available. Therefore, after the next speaker, I will have to reduce the time limit for Back-Bench speeches to five minutes.

Heather Wheeler: I have worked closely with Lord Freud, particularly on the jam jar bank accounts that will probably have to be introduced because of universal credit and the fact that some people are less adequate than others at coping with money, bills and so on. He has such an insightful mind and his only focus is on finding ways to assist people who do not have all their faculties to cope as best they can in society. It is the most disgraceful situation when a gentleman such as that is traduced and he cannot speak for himself because the Opposition have brought this debate to this Chamber and not the other place. I find that astonishing and cheap. The Opposition should look themselves in the mirror—

Ian Lavery: Does the hon. Lady also find astonishing the remarks that Lord Freud made initially?

Heather Wheeler: The difficulty we all have is this is a garbled piece of tape; we are listening to an answer to a question from a father who was asking Lord Freud whether he would allow something to happen for his child. That is where this synthetic anger and the appalling political football that this has turned into—

Ian Lavery: Did the hon. Lady say “garbled message”? Is she saying that Lord Freud did not say what the press are claiming he said?

Heather Wheeler: The tape is very difficult to hear. The father who asked the question has clarified the situation. Lord Freud felt that he needed to apologise, and people should accept that apology. He was answering a question from the father who was asking for that to happen. Which bit of that do the Opposition not get?

Cathy Jamieson: Does the hon. Lady believe that disabled people should have the right to be paid at least the minimum wage for employment?

Heather Wheeler: What I would really like is for us to see more than 10% of severely disabled people getting into work. This matter goes back to the work that we as MPs do in our constituencies. I am talking about the help that we give to those who come to our constituency surgeries—help with volunteering and help with references. The people I have seen over the past few years have gone on and secured really good jobs. Fitting people into the right position is so difficult. The truth is that people have bad days, and that is tough for the employer. The employer may be involved in the white heat of technology, and Gladys cannot turn up because she is
	having a bad day. We have to find suitable positions, because employers want disabled people to be fully functioning parts of society. They want to provide really good jobs and to help people. I see all sorts of jobs available, and have made many friends over the past four years—as MPs we collect friends in this Chamber and outside in the constituency. We now have 400 extra people working in jobcentres specifically helping disabled people to get into work. That is the sort of positive stuff we should be talking about.
	The aim of all of us has been totally clouded by this ludicrous debate today. We should be going back to the days when we had a bipartisan arrangement and when what we all wanted was for everybody to get on, to get a proper job and to feel that they were contributing to society. I can see plenty of people in this Chamber hanging their heads in shame. It is absolutely amazing. I really hope that the cameras are picking that up —[Interruption.] No, I will certainly not name them.
	This has been a poor debate, and we have not seen the Chamber at its best. It has been a wasted opportunity for the Opposition. It would have been so much better if they had come to this debate with real ideas, so that they could work with us. I heard just one idea from the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). That is just not good enough. The Opposition have played the wrong ball. The public and the audience in “Question Time” had it right: playing the man and not the ball is not a good idea.

Tom Clarke: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) on an excellent maiden speech, and very much welcome the tribute that she paid to our dear friend, Jim Dobbin.
	The House will know that, for many years, I have been involved in disability activities. I have worked with Members from both sides of the House—John Hammond, Nick Scott, Jack Ashley, Alf Morris and Sir John Major. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) said, I shadowed the present Leader of the House when the 1995 Act was going through the House. There was, at that time, a genuine spirit of consensus from which we are now departing.
	I have listened with great respect to the speeches of Government Members, including that of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), and I have to say that the issue is much, much deeper than simply a conflict between two political parties. I do not want to spend too much time on Lord Freud, except to say that given what he said, I do not believe that Clement Attlee or Harold Macmillan would have kept him in government for more than 10 minutes. The issues here are profound. They include a perception of this House, which is reflected in the support for the main political parties in every part of the United Kingdom, and in the understanding of people with disabilities and disabled organisations of the change we mean to deliver at a time of enormous poverty.
	I am not alone in that view. When I was preparing for a very important debate that I initiated in Westminster Hall this morning—I was delighted that the Minister of
	State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) was able to be there—I came across two articles, which helped me to make my point. This issue is at the core of people’s perception of this Parliament. In the
	Evening Standard, 
	Armando Iannucci wrote an article entitled, “Why politicians of all parties are kicking the poor.” Its sub-heading said:
	“Demonising genuine welfare claimants as skivers and benefit cheats is simply creating a more divided society.”
	Some people might think that that is over the top, but there was also an article on the same subject in The Guardian this morning. It asked this question: why, in addressing poverty, were we hounding a woman because she did not turn up for a disability examination and she stole from a food bank? She was faced with all the abuse that a court could provide.

Mike Kane: My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Poverty is high on the agenda when we face our constituents day in, day out. My constituent Matt Hopkins has faced real hardship. He applied for his PIP assessment in June 2013—he approached Paul Goggins, my predecessor, about the matter—and he did not receive a payment until June 2014.

Tom Clarke: I accept my hon. Friend’s serious point.
	In this morning’s debate on whether we really understand the hardship that is being inflicted on people with disabilities and on whether it was the right way for a Minister to express his views, I gave some examples of what was happening in my constituency. I also repeated the views of Citizens Advice Scotland. Let me give a couple of examples of the points that I made. I mentioned that four out of five advisers at Citizens Advice Scotland said that the delays are causing worsening health and, in nine out of 10 cases, additional stress and anxiety, not to mention the financial strain that people live under while their claims are assessed.
	I also gave figures from my constituency. Over a long period, applications for what is now PIP, formerly disability living allowance, have been lying for months and months without being dealt with. Citizens Advice seems powerless in this situation. I gave examples of case after case of real hardship. The people whom I represent and the people with disabilities are looking to this Parliament, and what is our response? The Minister of State, for whom I have great respect, helped me make my case when he sought to persuade the House by saying that Lord Freud had also advised Lord Hutton. But that is the point—a huge number of people simply do not trust this establishment. A huge number of people are experiencing poverty, and a huge number of people with disabilities are seeing themselves as victims, not as recipients of the compassion that this House should provide. People are waiting for many, many months for money that they desperately need and for other passported benefits. They are worried, as am I. I do not think that Lord Freud was the best person to speak for this House or for this Parliament at such a dangerous time.

Ben Gummer: I, too, would like to pay tribute to the new Member, the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), for a really interesting speech, and a charming and moving description
	of her constituency. I congratulate her on her success in what I know was a hard-fought campaign. She is one of a number of Members who have come here recently, and will no doubt come here in the next few months, after fighting in by-elections that might prefigure the next election and the difficulties that all hon. Members have with populist politicians who wish to paint this place and many of those who work here as people who do not listen, do not care and are interested only in themselves. I am very glad that she managed to make her case to her electorate, and that they, by a margin narrower than I imagine she would have wished, accepted her argument that, irrespective of the history of the Labour party or of the current travails of its leadership, she was best able to represent the community that she clearly cares very much about.
	That goes to the nub of the motion—the word “trust”, on the fourth line, which is what the Opposition are trying to get at. What frustrates me about this debate is that it really is a debate of two parts.
	I will leave the opening speech for a moment, because we have heard a number of significant contributions from Members who have far more experience than I have of the difficulties facing people with disability, as well as from Members who have experienced the difficulties of reform of the benefit system, under the previous and current Governments, in which I also have experience, as do others who will no doubt speak in the next few minutes. No one could not be affected by the significant speeches of the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), or of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who is one of the finest speakers in the House. I am also happy once again to follow a man I admire enormously, the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), who makes powerful points. Something rather like a centrifugal force has imposed itself, because all those Members have returned to the core issue of disability and left aside the motion on the Order Paper. That is because most people in the House really do care passionately about why they are here.
	There was a very good speech given at the beginning of the summer, at the Royal Institute of British Architects, which included the following opening statements:
	“Our biggest obstacle…is cynicism. The belief that nobody can make a difference. That all politics is the same. Voters believe we value posturing more than principle. Good photos or soundbites more than a decent policy. Image more than ideas. And it is no surprise that people think that. Because so often the terms of trade of politics—the way it is discussed and rated—has become about the manufactured, the polished, the presentational. Politics is played out as showbiz, a game, who is up and who is down. Rather than the best chance a lot of people have to change their lives. And things are judged far more on style than substance. But this political culture, this photo-op politics, denies people a debate about the things that really matter. And that does deep harm to our country. It leaves politics a game that fewer and fewer people are watching, or believing. People’s sense of the artificiality, the triviality, the superficiality of politics is more highly tuned than ever. And the more it seems this is what matters to us, the more the public are put off. Unless we stand up now and say that we want to offer people something different, more and more will simply turn away.”
	That was a speech by the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition called “The Choice”.
	We have a choice in this debate, and that is why I am sad, because I really respect the shadow Minister. We have been in Public Bill Committees together, and I too
	sensed that her heart was not in it. We have a choice to debate issues sensibly and seriously and not to take the easy political route. We have had a great debate in parts today, but it was nothing to do with what is in the motion. I respectfully suggest that the Opposition withdraw the motion rather than put it to a vote.

Gordon Marsden: I listened with care and some sympathy to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer). I remind him of the Quaker saying that he or she who would do good must begin with minute particulars. That is why today I want to touch on some of those particulars, which are not minute at all for my constituents in Blackpool South, which has a larger than average number of people with disabilities, often people who do not have family or close friends in the area. That is why two years ago when we were having all sorts of difficulties with Atos and the work capability assessment, I initiated an Adjournment debate when I pointed out some of the real issues with Motability, the revolving door of appeals, and the inability of Atos to deal with work capability assessment. Sadly, some of those issues are still relevant today. Even though Atos has been removed from the work capability assessment, it has not yet been replaced, and in the north-west it remains in charge of the personal independence payment process. On top of all the problems that we have heard today, my area has a particular problem because people cannot even get to an assessment centre nearby.
	Our citizens advice bureau wrote to me last year about a matter that I have raised with Ministers and on the Floor of the House and with all sorts of people. We only have a medical assessment centre for PIP medicals in Preston, which is some way from the centre of Blackpool, not near public transport and certainly off the beaten track. It is fraught with issues such as costing residents more money to get there, longer journeys with people not familiar with where they are going and probably needing a taxi, and so on. When I asked why clients were expected to travel that distance, the reply from the PIP implementation team directed me to the Atos website, which stated that DWP guidance permits a client to travel 90 minutes one way for work or a job interview. Indeed it does, but that totally misses the salient point that these are people with illnesses, disability and stress.
	I have spent some time trying to winkle out of Atos and the Minister and his officials where we are up to in the process. I had a meeting with them at our party conference and I was then told by the Atos manager that they were working on it and would have an assessment centre by mid-2015. When I asked whether he had been from Blackpool to the Preston centre, he said he had, and when I asked how, he said, “By car.” That really sums it up. On 17 August the Minister wrote to say that he was sorry that there was nothing that he could usefully add to what I had been told, which was basically that we would have to wait until mid-June. It is not surprising that he had nothing useful to add because neither he nor his officials had had anything useful to say to prod Atos into action on this and a series of other areas.
	The best way of looking at these issues is to look at what comes to us from our caseworkers. In particular, I pay tribute to my caseworker, Gillian Tomlinson, who
	works tirelessly in this area. I want to quote a couple of examples. She talks about Mrs B, who contacted us in June 2014, who receives the highest rate care and mobility and is practically housebound. She applied for employment and support allowance in January and Atos told her that a home visit would not be authorised. Finally she has been placed in the ESA support group. Mrs W contacted us in extreme distress. She failed a work capability assessment and ESA stopped immediately. She is a vulnerable lady who found the whole process difficult to understand.
	My caseworker says: “The whole mandatory reconsideration process continues to be concerning, in as much as ESA benefits are stopped immediately after a claimant is advised that they are fit for work. It seems to me that the whole process is now being made so complex that the Government are hoping that people will not go through it and will accept the decision made.” That is indeed the case. The excellent Alan Reid, who manages my Disability First centre, says: “To us people come desperate and, in some cases, suicidal.” That remains the case. That is why Lord Freud’s comments were so damaging and so difficult for disabled people to accept.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: May I add my congratulations to those already offered to the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) on a fine maiden speech? I was a great admirer of her predecessor, who was a wonderful man and an ornament to the House of Commons. He was, among other things, a papal knight. I am delighted that the hon. Lady is following in his footsteps with her excellent speech.
	I want to move on from excellent speeches and things that made politics look as though they are for good and honourable people to the less pleasant subject of political opportunism. Political opportunism, of course, is something that plagues the political world and which we all have to deal with. Some people are very good at it. Alex Salmond comes to mind as an expert in that art. Some people might say that Nigel Farage is good at political opportunism, although others might think that he is more inspired than that. I am afraid, however, that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) is not good at political opportunism; she is far too serious-minded and able a figure to lower herself to such depths.
	It is interesting that the Labour party’s heart is not really in political opportunism. I notice that the shadow Secretary of State is not here. No doubt that is for very good reasons, but very good reasons for detaining senior political figures sometimes align to a remarkable degree with the disagreeability of the subject they have to discuss. I recall that a former Prime Minister, John Major, was detained by a serious toothache at a crucial point when the leadership of the Conservative party was at stake.

Heather Wheeler: His wisdom teeth.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. I hope that the shadow Secretary of State is not having problems with her dentist and that her absence is merely because she dislikes the subject under discussion.
	This motion is an example of political opportunism, and we have known that from the first. How did the subject come into the public domain? Was it done in an upright and what we might call manly way? No, not a bit of it. Somebody was sent undercover to the Tory party conference. Some socialist, no doubt wearing a dirty mackintosh, crept in to hear the noble Lord Freud make a few comments at the party conference. Was that the upright fashion we expect even from the Labour party, or was it actually a rather underhand approach to political debate?
	What was then done with the tape recording, this gold dust of political embarrassment? Was it brought forth and released to the newspapers? No. As the hon. Lady said, it was kept to the most important part of the parliamentary week. Parliament was in recess, so we had to wait for the revelation to come forth. One wonders why Prime Minister’s questions was suddenly in the eyes of the Leader of the Opposition. He must be a glutton for punishment if that was his view, for surely most Leaders of the Opposition think that other occasions are more enjoyable, for example when it is they, rather than the Prime Minister, who have the final word. The recording was held back as an example of pure political opportunism, to be used at a point when it could inconvenience the Prime Minister the most.
	Even our great Prime Minister cannot know everything that is said by every junior Minister at every meeting at a party conference. His mind may be full of many things, but even his mind, great as it is, cannot hold that many things all at once. Inevitably, the Minister came under a bit of flack, and he apologised. I do not know the noble Lord Freud—I have been in the same room as him, but I have never met him—but the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston said that he is courteous and compassionate. So we have a courteous and compassionate man who is contributing to the development and discussion of public policy, and in so doing he said some words that he should not have said.
	How is public policy to be developed if every time somebody says something that is a little bit interesting or beyond the consensus, their name is hauled before this Chamber and their resignation demanded? Are we to allow no development of public policy? Are we always to have witless comments being made in a politically correct way that allows nobody to consider what is in the real interests of people who are sometimes the most deprived in society? Are we to do nothing to help them improve their condition or enable the state to assist them in getting out of the levels of deprivation they are in? Are we to be so fearful, so frightened and so terrified of people sent around to spy on public meetings that we never develop policy at all? If that is what the socialists want, they are wrong.

Eilidh Whiteford: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). The other week, when the House debated the minimum wage, considerable reference was made to the comments of Lord Freud that are under scrutiny today. I alluded to those comments in passing and called them disgraceful, and I stand by that today. However, in holding Government Ministers to account for their statements, it is important not to lose sight of the underlying issues: the disadvantages that disabled people face in the labour market; the
	disproportionate numbers of disabled people experiencing economic hardship; and the diminishing support for disabled people as a direct and indirect consequence of Government policy.
	It is worth reminding ourselves that the minimum wage is not a living wage. If someone is working full time on the minimum wage, the chances are that they are already receiving additional benefits to bring their standard of living up to an acceptable minimum, especially if they are living in private rented accommodation or have dependants. The minimum wage really is a minimum wage—the clue is in the name—so any suggestion that working adults should be paid any less than that is, in my view, simply unacceptable. It defeats the purpose of a minimum floor for wages if that floor can be undercut for disabled employees.
	I wonder whether there is a tacit acknowledgement in the Minister’s comments that the Government are failing those who struggle to secure even low-paid work in a competitive market economy. We know how tough the labour market is in some parts of the country, even for people with fairly good skills and qualifications. I have said before in the House that we need to acknowledge more openly the barriers and challenges that some disabled people face in accessing the labour market. Unlike the Minister, however, that leads me to conclude not that those people should be paid some minimum wages for their time and labour, but that we need to be much more realistic about the kind of support some individuals need to secure and sustain employment and, above all, that we need to stop stigmatising those whose health and disabilities make it hard for them to access the labour market and hold down a job.
	Almost half of disabled people of working age are in employment. Disabled people are, however, more likely to be in low-paid work and to report unfair treatment in the workplace than non-disabled people. There is no doubt that many disabled people are overcoming huge hurdles on a daily basis, perhaps because they are grappling with chronic pain, mobility problems and a range of invisible barriers that take a lot more out of them than they take out of able-bodied people. However, there are many more who, in spite of their efforts, cannot get a job or whose fluctuating health condition makes it harder for them to stay in work. Today the See Me campaign has launched a programme in Scotland called “People Like You” to tackle mental health stigma and discrimination in the workplace, so our debate today is timely. Raising awareness with employers and work forces is very important, but the Government also need to ensure that disabled people’s rights are protected in the workplace and that those who cannot work get the support they need.
	The enormous changes to the benefits system over the past few years have impacted directly on disabled people and those with long-term health conditions. I will not dwell on the work capability assessment or the Work programme, but I will say something about personal independence payments. People in my constituency have been waiting for more than nine months for a PIP assessment, which has caused serious stress and financial hardship, but it has also put pressure on the NHS, the local authority and those people’s families.
	The links between poverty and disability in our society have not been mentioned today as much as I had expected. It is important to remember that one in three
	disabled working-age adults, and 40% of disabled children, live in low-income households. In other words, disabled people are twice as likely to live on low incomes than those without a disability. I fear that the changes in the benefits system will only exacerbate those problems.
	Before I finish my remarks, I want to talk about the bedroom tax. It is one of those policies that was not aimed at disabled people, yet even the Government’s own impact assessment found that two thirds of the households affected were home to someone with a disability, and in Scotland that figure was 80%. I do not know why the Government did not just go back to the drawing board. Instead, we heard all this rhetoric about spare bedrooms, when the reality is that the people who had the least choice about where they live were being picked on in hugely disproportionate numbers.
	What has been really pernicious in the debate about benefit changes over the past few years is the way in which claimants have been stigmatised and berated. The sense that anyone who is on benefits for a long time is a malingerer, a scrounger or even a benefits cheat has become deeply ingrained in the public discourse, and not nearly enough has been done here to counter that.
	That brings me back to the motion, which calls for the removal of a Minister. I do not take that lightly because—let us face it—lots of people make offensive comments all the time. However, far more important than the fact that the Under-Secretary has lost the confidence of this House is the fact that he has lost the confidence of the disabled people affected by a wide range of Government policies. Those are the people on whom we need to focus.

Margot James: I very much wanted to take part in this debate so I greatly appreciate being called to speak given that I must apologise to the House for not having been here for all the opening speeches. I was at a meeting with the Home Secretary that could not be changed. First, I add my congratulations to the newly elected Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) on her very good maiden speech. I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) about the importance of her victory, which virtually the whole House will celebrate.
	I am surprised that the Opposition are continuing their witch hunt against Lord Freud. I did not agree with the form of words that he used, for which he has apologised. I would have thought that after the drubbing the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), received on “Question Time”, they might have learnt their lesson about the pursuit of this individual for some remarks that he made in answer to a question by a family member of someone who was affected by this distressing issue without rephrasing their words. I think that is about the sum of it. I have spoken to him about this. He in no way marks down the worth of people with disabilities that have nothing to do with the economic value that they might add to an enterprise in the workplace.
	We have to face the fact that while many people desperately want to work—to find an occupation where they can be of some value and make a contribution—there is sometimes an issue about whether their value can be recognised economically, and that might call for more
	Government intervention. The Opposition have not addressed that. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) put this very well, and he reminded the House that only 10% of people with learning disabilities are in work. We should all be ashamed of that and seek an answer to it rather than conducting a witch hunt against a man who is giving his time, without any remuneration at all, to try to help people with disabilities.
	The Opposition have a track record in this area. For 10 years, before 2008 or thereabouts, almost 1 million people with disabilities were more or less parked on various incapacity benefits—out of sight, out of mind, with no review.

Kate Green: I want to put the record straight. People were parked on incapacity benefit going right back to the 1980s, and in the early 2000s the Labour Government began to explore policies that ultimately led to the employment and support allowance and work capability assessment, which were endorsed by both parties. It is not right to say that Labour policies parked people there only over the past 10 years.

Margot James: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which was slightly premature, because I was going to carry on to give the Opposition some credit for what they belatedly started to do in government —with, I must tell the House, the help of Lord Freud, which is an irony not lost on me.
	We must not forget some of the things that the previous Government did. They appointed Atos. They left this Government with the legacy of a fairly draconian system that made no allowances for people with mental health issues who took part in work capability assessments in the early days. Some of those people had fluctuating conditions that meant that if they went for their assessment on a bad day, they might get somewhere, but if it happened to be a good day, they would not. No account was taken of that. This Government brought in Professor Harrington, who conducted a number of reviews that have humanised the system considerably. Now we are looking to find a new provider that will take the place of the Atos, which, as I have said, we inherited from the previous Government.
	The previous Government did try to start getting people with disabilities into work, but they needed to will the means as well as the ends. It was not enough just to go round closing day centres and pushing people into the community. Their mantra was that everybody had to be in work before they could set about tackling discrimination, tackling the fact that a lot of businesses were ignorant about how to employ people with disabilities, and trying to change public attitudes. As a result of this Government’s more painstaking approach, some of those issues have been tackled at source, working with industry and employers. The number of disabled people in employment is up by 116,000 this year. Over 35,000 people with disabilities have been helped by the Access to Work scheme. I accept what was said earlier about the possibility that not everybody on the Work Choice programme is a proper candidate for it, but that is down to implementation, which all Governments wrestle with. The majority of the 27,000 people who have been helped have been eligible.
	The companies that have been brought on board by the Government’s Disability Confident campaign have made a real difference. I pay tribute to Sainsbury’s and Waitrose in my constituency. Nationally, Sainsbury’s has employed 2,000 people with disabilities through its You Can initiative. I pay tribute to the Government for changing the whole ethos—seeing what people with disabilities can do. It really is a credit to the Secretary of State and his team that they have improved those people’s chances of finding work. The results are there for all to see.

Fiona O'Donnell: I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate, because I have to apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and to the Minister for Employment for the fact that, because of a long-standing engagement, I will not be here for the closing speeches. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) on her maiden speech, which I was so pleased to be in the Chamber to hear.
	I thank East Lothian council’s welfare rights team for their support. I also thank the two citizens advice bureaux in my constituency, in Haddington and Musselburgh, which always wait until the last minute before they finally come to me to pick up the pieces from the mess that this Government have made of welfare reform.
	We have heard calls for maturity in this debate, but I am afraid that I get a little emotional talking about this issue having had a Thursday and a Friday like I did in my constituency, when several people came to see me about their ability to access work. I saw Allison and Graeme, deaf constituents who were possibly not going to be able to continue in their employment because of what this Government are doing with the interpreters they need to be able to access work. I saw a woman who had been on ESA for a year who, having made an application to go into the support group, has now had a letter saying that her ESA is going to stop next month. She does not know what she is going to live on. I saw a woman who had had a heart attack, who was turned down for a PIP, and now has to go back to work full-time long before her doctor feels that she should be doing so.
	I have written to the Minister about the case of Mr and Mrs O’Connor, and we have finally had a response. I do not know if that is because I intervened. I never like to think that my intervention gets someone more than the treatment they are entitled to, but Mr and Mrs O’Connor really deserve help. Mr O’Connor has T-cell lymphoma cancer. He has had his spleen removed. He has diabetes, neuropathy in his hands and his feet, kidney problems, heart failure, and severe back pain that requires pain relief injections. He needs help with all his self-care, and his mobility is extremely limited because he uses two walking crutches and a wheelchair when outside. He applied for a PIP in February this year. I would like the Minister to explain—I promise I will check the transcript of the debate—why people are not getting acknowledgements when they lodge a claim for a PIP, because they are then left wondering whether the claim is being looked at.
	Indeed, in Mr O’Connor’s case, despite the PIP2 form having been sent in March, it was not until this month—October—that Atos called to say it had looked at the paperwork. When I wrote to the Minister’s predecessor in February, I was told that the Department was on a learning curve, but it must be going around in circles because the situation has not changed since then. These are people whose lives are already incredibly difficult, but this Government are pushing them to the point where their lives are unbearable. That is simply not good enough.
	The Minister spoke about the extra money going into the Access to Work programme. There has been a pause because the Department did not understand the impact the situation would have on deaf people who need interpreters. I hope the Minister will update the House on how that work is going.
	There has been praise for the new assessment system, but one thing we did better than this Government was to make awards for life. The father of two daughters who have cerebellar ataxia and whose conditions are never going to improve—his family live with that loss and that pain every day—has to fill out a form every two years repeating everything his daughters cannot and never will be able to do. How does the Minister think that that improves the quality of his life or that of his daughters? I would like an answer to that question.
	I know that some Conservative Members thought it was political opportunism to refer to Lord Freud’s remarks, but the position that we all claim to hold—namely, that every life is of equal worth and value—underpins what the minimum wage was about. As the mother of a daughter with cerebral palsy and epilepsy, the thing I found so offensive about Lord Freud’s remarks was his use of the word “worth.”
	I have compassion. Perhaps I will make some dreadful mistakes during my time in this House, but I pledge that if I ever do anything on that scale I will have the humility and self-awareness to resign.

Anne Main: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) for speaking so passionately on behalf of her constituents. What annoys me is that some Labour Members—not the hon. Lady; I am absolutely certain of that—feel that they are the only ones who feel compassion or concern and that Conservative Members could not possibly be concerned about their constituents. The Minister made a measured opening speech, in which he pointed out that it is what is not being discussed in this debate that is so telling.
	The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) raised many excellent points that could have been discussed at length, but no—the whole debate had to be focused on Lord Freud’s comments and a call for his scalp. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) spoke passionately —he ditched his speech—and said that this House is so much better when we focus on what we can do, what we can bring to this House and what we can achieve together with a consensual approach.
	This whole debate is focused on some ill-judged remarks by a man who has apologised and who has a track record of working with parties on both sides of the
	House to improve the lives of the disabled. I think that Labour Members who care as passionately as the hon. Member for East Lothian does will realise that this has been a grossly missed opportunity. The right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) said that he did not want to talk about Lord Freud. I agree with him, but the whole debate is about Lord Freud when it should be about how we ensure that we get more people with disabilities into work.
	Many Members on both sides of the House support charities, and I am proud to say that I am a patron for Mind in St Albans. I was pleased to present the first “way to work” campaign commemorative statuette, which encourages employers to take a flexible and thoughtful approach to working with people with mental disabilities and mental illness. I found it slightly depressing, however, that not many employers in my constituency took up that opportunity. The scheme ran for only one year, which is why I am pleased to renew my efforts to work with Mind. We need to find a way to get more people back into work.
	My constituent John supports the Conservative party—that is, when he is not leaving us and voting for UKIP, Labour or another party. He takes a keen interest in politics and has spoken to me on numerous occasions. Sadly, when he was three—44 years ago—he had an accident in which he nearly drowned. It has left John having to deal with profound challenges in his life, but he wants to get into work. That is what this House should be addressing today: how can we improve the lives of people like John who are in the 10% and are finding it difficult? He does not want charity, but he does want the opportunity to engage in society and to have all the benefits that come with work—on top of the monetary ones—and the dignity it brings.
	As I have said, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys spoke passionately and suggested a way forward to try to help people like John who have to deal with significant challenges to integrate in the work force, which is where they want to be. Let us not pretend, however, that this is an easy subject and that brickbats can be thrown at the nasty party and people who supposedly do not care. People do care. I think we actually all want the same result—the discussion is about how we get there—but to have a whole debate on the ill-judged remarks of someone who has apologised profoundly for them is a wasted opportunity.
	I look forward to hearing the summing-up speeches of the two Front Benchers. Lots of issues have been raised, and I am not saying that there are no problems. My postbag is like any other; I am sure we all know of difficulties with the Access to Work programme and some of the systems that have been put in place. Yes, we can blame the previous lot for leaving us with the legacy of Atos, and yes, we know it is not perfect while we are trying to deal with it, but let us be realistic: people who are having trouble accessing work as a result of disability and mental illness deserve better from this House than we have heard today. This motion does this House a disservice, because all it does is call for the scalp of somebody who has apologised for his remarks and whose life history shows that he has actually tried to work for the betterment of those people who have difficulties accessing work as a result of disability.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. A great many people still wish to speak, so I will have to reduce the time limit to four minutes.

Nia Griffith: I rise to speak in this debate because I feel very strongly that every disabled individual, no matter what their disability, deserves to have the utmost respect and to be valued for their skills. We should be doing all we can to break down the very real barriers that prevent disabled people from taking a full part both in the workplace and in social activities.
	Before I turn to the concerns of disabled people in my constituency about the effect of Government policies on them, I want to pay tribute to the Llanelli Disabled Access Group. Sadly, it has had to wind up its activities this month, but over the past few years it has done a really good job advising people on how to adapt both public and private buildings, inspecting those buildings and giving out awards for good practice. The group’s work has been excellent and it will be sorely missed.
	I will briefly mention PIP assessments, which I am extremely worried about. I have several constituency cases of great concern, because people are in real financial difficulties. One constituent applied for PIP in September 2013 and had the medical assessment in December, but did not finally receive the benefit until September this year. Another applied in July 2013, but had not even had the medical assessment by June 2014. People are therefore having to wait a whole year. After having been to an assessment, they are very often told to go for another one. They ask whether they should go to it and are told that they should not, because they have already been to one, but they then get a letter saying that their benefit has been cut off anyway. These sorts of things must really be put right. I hope that the Minister with responsibility for disabled people will make a real effort to get such things right for these people.

Jessica Morden: Does my hon. Friend agree with constituents of mine who have asked me to convey that the repeated changes are hitting disabled people in multiple ways—the year-long wait for a PIP decision, or being hit by the bedroom tax—and really terrifying them? Does she agree that we should never underestimate the real fear they experience during a year of waiting for such support?

Nia Griffith: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. There are certainly some very real concerns, and I know that many of my constituents are very worried about what will happen during the transition from DLA to PIP. We obviously very much hope that the Government will sort these things out long before our constituents are put through the process.
	I want to express very real concerns about people with degenerative conditions being put in the work-related activity group. It is terrible to have a degenerative condition—it is horrible to have a sort of life sentence—but it is worse to be constantly called in. The Minister says that that is to see whether they need extra help, but they may already receive the highest level of support, so that is rather difficult to believe. They should be exempted from repeated assessments.
	I want to refer to the Welsh Affairs Committee’s report in which we detailed several concerns about the Work programme in Wales. It has a very poor rate of success in Wales, with only one in 20 people in the disabled category being found a position. That success rate of 5% is disgraceful. It does not compare favourably with the rate of 7% in Britain as a whole, and it certainly does not compare favourably with that for able-bodied people. Oxfam Cymru described some appalling practices:
	“People who were seen as furthest away from the labour market were de-prioritised and only got any support at all after having very strong local advocacy.”
	It also referred to the “absence of personalised support”. The then Work and Pensions Minister, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), told us:
	“Work providers…need to improve their employer engagement effort. They need to increase the supply of jobs that are available to people who have been out of work for some time.”
	The Work and Pensions Committee called for a national action plan, before the end of 2013, to engage employers in the Work programme. Will the Minister tell us what progress has been made in getting better engagement from employers, and give us categorical assurances that no such approaches to employers involve employing anybody on less than the minimum wage? We are so concerned about the comments of the Minister for Welfare Reform because we feel that they may betray a hidden Government agenda. That is why we need such assurances.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) explained so well, there has been a concerted attack on disabled people, and talk of swingeing cuts to the incomes of those who are already among the poorest in society but who are portrayed as scroungers. Sadly, there has been a rise in the number of incidents of hate crime. There is a real responsibility on everybody in government to do their utmost to combat negative images and ensure that we give disabled people the respect they deserve. We should do all we can to enable them to fulfil their potential, whether in the workplace or in other spheres of their lives.

Cathy Jamieson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) on her passionate maiden speech. She gave us a tour of her constituency, which will encourage us to revisit it. She spoke with great knowledge and sincerity about the problems of the bedroom tax for her constituents. Those problems are shared by constituents in my area and right across the UK, and it is exactly for those reasons that the policy should be repealed.
	Government Members have suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) somehow did not have her heart in the debate, but I cannot think of anyone who has more heart for tackling inequality and poverty. She has a tremendous track record on that, and she made several very important points. Sadly, whether or not the noble Lord’s remarks were meant to cause offence, the reality is that they have caused both offence and hurt.
	In the short time that I have, I shall concentrate on three issues that disabled people in my constituency have come to me about. The first is a lack of understanding of long-term conditions. I have dealt with people with
	multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s, people who have children on the extreme end of the autistic spectrum and, recently, somebody with a very rare condition, all of whom have been called to repeated assessments or have been asked to travel in circumstances that make it very difficult for them. That shows a lack of understanding of their conditions.
	People have come to speak to me about the lack of help and support to get into work. They tell me that there is simply no expertise. It is not possible to get quick access to people who understand their conditions and provide the tailored, personalised support that they need to get back into work. There are severe limitations to the Work programme.
	Perhaps the most critical point that I want to raise in the minute or so that I have left is about the personal independence payment. A couple of weeks ago, I received a letter from a constituent:
	“After injuring my back due to an accident at work in August 2012, I have become almost house bound. I have had one operation and now after another MRI scan I am awaiting further surgery. I am in pain all the time and on many different medications including morphine… I barely go out unless my partner is here and able to drive me”.
	He wanted to give me that brief description of what his life is like so that I, as a politician, could understand his point of view.
	My constituent told me that he made a claim for PIP in January by telephone. By May or June, when he had not heard anything back, he telephoned again. As other hon. Members have said, it would help if people received an acknowledgement that their case was being dealt with and a time scale that was reasonable. When he called, he was told, to his horror, that they could not find his application and that he would have to do another one. Since then, he has received a letter from Atos saying that it was dealing with his case, but that it could take 12 to 16 weeks. He called again and was told that it could take six months.
	My constituent ended with the plea:
	“I am a very genuine case”.
	He should not have to say to me that he is a genuine case; everyone should be treated as a genuine case. It is simply not good enough that people are not being dealt with quicker and are not getting the support that they need, financial or otherwise.

Debbie Abrahams: I, too, congratulate my new neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), who made a fantastic maiden speech. I know that she will go from strength to strength.
	The Government’s onslaught of welfare reforms is so punitive and regressive that it is taking us back to the Victorian era. People who are disabled or who have long-term illnesses are being hit particularly hard. Any one of us could fall ill, become disabled or fall on hard times. We have a welfare system so that people have a safety net, but I am afraid that it is failing.
	The main point that I want to make in the short time that I have is about social security sanctions. The Government’s sanctions regime was introduced at the end of 2012. More than 4.5 million people on jobseeker’s allowance had been sanctioned by March this year.
	More than 2 million of those people had a sanction where payments were stopped for at least four weeks. Last year, the number of people with disabilities or long-term conditions on employment and support allowance who were sanctioned increased by 250%.
	David Clapson, a former soldier who had diabetes, was sanctioned and his money was stopped. When his electricity was cut off, he could not keep his insulin cold and so could not use it. Unfortunately, he died. I pay tribute to his sister, Gill Thompson, for all that she has done to raise awareness of what happened to David. Sadly, his is not the only case.
	More than 200,000 people signed a petition calling for an independent inquiry into sanctions. Last week, after the Government refused to hold an independent inquiry into the sanctions scandal, the Work and Pensions Committee agreed to hold an inquiry into it. We will examine the appropriateness of sanctions and their efficacy and effects. We will also consider how they are used for people who are on ESA and the alternatives to financial sanctions.
	There is anecdotal evidence that it has been Government policy to have targets for sanctions. The initial findings of a research group at Oxford university show that, of the 2 million-plus people on JSA who were sanctioned, one in four left JSA and more than half of those did so for reasons other than employment. That blows out of the water the Government’s claims that their welfare reforms are getting people back to work.
	In the limited time available, I also want to refer to the personal independence payment that has affected many of my constituents. One has waited 10 months for his assessment and been passed from pillar to post, with mixed-up assessment dates and the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. We have heard of an assessment backlog affecting 300,000 people. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a fuller response than he gave to the Work and Pensions Committee when explaining why advisers were made redundant when there was an escalation and backlog of cases, because, quite frankly, that was inadequate.

Mark Lazarowicz: I, too, have several constituents who have expressed to me their anger at the statement by Lord Freud. They wanted me to raise those concerns in Parliament, so I am glad to have the opportunity to associate myself with the motion today. As time is limited, however, I will not dwell on those comments, but concentrate instead on the delays to assessments and to decisions on applications for the personal independence payment.
	Members on both sides of the House will know that PIP affects many of our constituents. Countrywide the numbers are immense and underline that yet another welfare reform policy from this Government is being introduced in a botched and chaotic manner. According to Government figures, 329,000 disabled people are currently stuck in a backlog to see whether they qualify for PIP. A recent powerful report from Citizens Advice Scotland, “Voices from the frontline” highlighted the personal impact on so many people of delays in PIP assessment decisions. It estimated that claimants typically wait at least six months for the assessment. A Macmillan Cancer Support report last June came to the same
	finding—cancer patients are waiting at least six months—and many Members will have examples from their constituencies of much longer delays. I have had cases of people who applied for PIP in July or September 2013. More than a year later they are still waiting for a decision.
	We must ask why there are such delays on PIP assessments and applications. One strong argument is that there are not enough assessment centres. That is important for people who live a long way from a centre—obviously, the more centres there are, the easier it will be for people to get to them. There are also indications that the number of people having face-to-face assessments is higher than the Government originally estimated and that claimants’ interviews are taking longer. That may be a good thing, but those factors will presumably impact on the demand for assessments and the delays that result from that. The introduction of PIP was called a “fiasco” by the Public Accounts Committee. The accumulating evidence of what is happening is all the more shocking because it is so similar to what occurred with employment and support allowance and work capability assessments—the same company, Atos, was involved there.
	In the time available I want to highlight a different aspect of this issue. For many people, delays to PIP, ESA and other benefits will not only affect their income but have consequences for their health because of the stress involved in the delay and the associated impact on them and their families. Some people will face difficulties as a result of a delay. For others, the assessment will come too late as they will no longer be alive.
	Let me take this opportunity briefly to raise one issue from the campaign by Gordon Aikman, who is well known in Scotland, to improve the care and support of people with motor neurone disease. Half of those diagnosed with MND die within 14 months. Claims from people with a terminal illness who are not expected to live more than six months can be fast-tracked, but where does that leave people living with a rapidly progressing condition such as MND who may be expected to live longer—although perhaps not much longer—but who could still have to wait at least six months for their PIP claim to be assessed? I call on the Government to introduce measures to fast-track PIP applications for people with MND or other rapidly progressing conditions, so that at least a decision can be made and they can get the benefits to which they are entitled.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) on her maiden speech. Her predecessor, Jim Dobbin, was a good friend of all of us in the House and was deeply appreciated and loved by many. We look forward to her valuable contributions.
	Democratic Unionist party Members and other Members from Northern Ireland opposed the welfare reforms. The necessary changes had to be made in this House, but Sinn Fein obstructed the process in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Those who are disabled, those who are on benefits, those who are on jobseeker’s allowance and those who are taxpayers are under the cosh of Sinn
	Fein’s objections to the process in Northern Ireland. The changes could have been made here, but the measures were absent from this Chamber.
	I employ eight staff, one of whom does nothing but deal with benefits, and the task has increased greatly. I and charities such as Disability Rights UK and Disability Action are particularly concerned about the work capability assessment for ESA. Those with acute physical and emotional pressures and disabilities and those who need therapeutic work because of anxiety and depression are under severe pressure, which concerns me greatly. Thirty-seven per cent. of work capability assessment decisions were appealed, and an astonishing 23% were overturned in favour of the appellant. There are clearly problems with the system and it is not working correctly.
	Many Members have said that all Members are concerned about the welfare changes, but let us be clear: the changes are being made not by Members on the Opposition Benches but by those on the Government Benches, so let us put the blame where it lies.
	Citizens Advice offered advice in September 2013 to 72,000 disabled people with debt problems. It found that rent arrears had continued to rise and that one third of landlords’ clients advised on eviction or repossession were disabled or had long-term health conditions. Some 12% of disabled people used food banks in 2013.
	Members have commented on housing benefit and discretionary payments. Come the new year the discretionary housing benefit budget in my constituency will be running out and those who need it will be under pressure. We are all aware of what that means.
	I have great concern about the bedroom tax or the spare room subsidy, depending on one’s definition. We hoped that changes would be made in the Northern Ireland Assembly, but unfortunately they have been held up. The time scale for the change from disability living allowance to the personal independence payment is completely unsatisfactory.
	The independent living fund has been removed and the role of devolved government and local authorities has changed. Local charities have expressed concern and I hope that the Government will change their position on the ILF.
	I support the motion.

John McDonnell: May I say what a terrific speech we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes)? It presaged the contribution she will make in the House.
	Of course Lord Freud’s statement was a disgrace, but I am more worried about what he is doing than about what he is saying. I opposed his appointment under the previous Government, and I did so under this one. The appointment of a venture capitalist to advise on welfare benefits is bizarre.
	Let me raise an issue about disabled war pensioners. In July 2012 the Prime Minister visited Camp Bastion. The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) quoted The Guardian. Let me balance things up by quoting The Sun:
	“Wounded war heroes are to keep their disability benefits for life after the PM stepped in to halt a bid to cut them. Worried veterans—including soldiers who lost limbs in battle—had been
	facing humiliating re-tests that could have seen them stripped of crucial cash. But David Cameron has now slapped down the MoD bureaucrats and ruled that anyone left disabled by military service must be exempt from benefit cuts.”
	In the article, the Prime Minister was quoted as saying:
	“I made a promise to our forces that they will get special treatment, and I intend to stick to it.”
	The Royal British Legion was quoted:
	“We applaud the Prime Minister and”
	the Work and Pensions Secretary
	“for standing up for our wounded heroes.”
	Mo Stewart, a disabled veteran and disability researcher, contacted the Cabinet Office to confirm that that was the case. The Cabinet Office said that
	“the Cabinet has just agreed that War Pensioners can retain access to DLA as an acknowledgment of their service to the nation”.
	At the Conservative party conference, the Prime Minister stood up and, in a warm speech, congratulated our veterans from various wars since the second world war. The problem was that, at the very same time, 80,000 veterans received a letter warning them that their access to DLA was about to be withdrawn, completely contrary to the statement made in July 2012 at Camp Bastion.
	The defence personnel secretariat was in utter confusion. Its briefing said that disabled war pensioners would have access to the more generous constant care allowance, which is a supplement added to the basic pension. That was misleading and completely incorrect. It disregarded the fact that war pensioners need to demonstrate an 80% disability to access the constant care allowance. The recipients of the new armed forces compensation scheme need to demonstrate a 50% permanent disability.
	There are 166,000 disabled war pensioners. Half of them—80,000—are beyond the age of 70 and will therefore retain access to disability living allowance, but the remainder will have to go through the same process as everyone else, despite the promises and assurances given by the Prime Minister and reinforced by the Secretary of State. As has been pointed out time and again by Opposition Members, that means they will endure six to 12-month waits for the assessment on PIP, the non-delivery of benefits and the cutting of benefits. Is that what the Prime Minister wanted when he congratulated disabled war veterans and honoured them for the sacrifices they have made in the interests of this country and to defend this country’s interests? I do not think it was. Either, like Lord Freud, the Prime Minister misspoke, or—others have accused him of this—this is a betrayal, which would be unacceptable.

Stephen Timms: We have had a wide-ranging debate with thoughtful contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House about how best to support disabled people. Lord Freud’s words touched a nerve with disabled people around the country because of their experience in the past few years. They felt that, in those words, there was an explanation of what has happened, such as the bedroom tax and the delays with PIP assessments, which we have heard a lot about in the debate.
	In an excellent speech opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) pointed out that half of former Remploy employees are still out of work. A constituent came to see me
	yesterday morning. He has cerebral palsy. He worked for 25 years at the local Remploy factory, which closed in 2012. He came to see me before the closure because he was worried that he would end up on the scrapheap. Today, he believes that that is exactly where he is. Promises were made about support, but he has had one trial for a call centre job in the two years since the factory closed down, and it came to nothing. The promises that were made have simply not been kept and help has not materialised, and disabled people have been let down.
	Earlier this afternoon, I met representatives from the residential training colleges for disabled people and those furthest from the workplace. Between them—there are nine of them—they get hundreds of people into work every year. They have a contract until next August. They have no idea what happens beyond that. They told me that the Minister has repeatedly refused to meet them despite their requests. Once again, disabled people are being left in limbo.

Ben Gummer: The hon. Gentleman raised a sad individual case and drew a general conclusion. Does he accept that since 2010 166,000 more disabled people are in work than when we took office?

Stephen Timms: As the Minister was right to acknowledge, the employment rate penalty for disabled people is not going down. It was going down in the past; it is no longer going down. Part of the reason for that is what has happened with the Work programme. In respect of people out of work on health grounds—people on employment and support allowance—the invitation to tender for the Work programme said that if there was no programme at all, 15% of them would be expected to get job outcomes within two years. Actual performance, with the Work programme in place, has been worse than half of that—an extraordinary failure rate of 93%.
	The Minister told us earlier that the Work programme is now doing a bit better and that one in 10 people are getting some help. That still means that 90% are not being helped—an extraordinary failure. [Interruption.] What the Secretary of State is chuntering from the Front Bench is wrong. All the current funding for the Work programme comes from job outcome payments. According to a recent written answer, the Work programme paid out in total £332 million in job outcome payments between June 2011 and March 2014. Only £19 million of that was payments in respect of ESA claimants. Very little has been spent on helping disabled people back to work, so it is not surprising that so few have been helped.
	I join other speakers in the debate in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) on her excellent maiden speech. I echo her tribute to her predecessor, Jim Dobbin. I did a little canvassing during her election campaign and spoke to one man who said he would vote for her. He has since written to me to tell me that after that he met my hon. Friend and was delighted that he had made the right decision by voting for her. It was quite a long letter, which I have passed on to her. I know that she will have a very successful tenure as the local Member.
	The situation does not need to be as it is at present. The plan that we have set out shows how we can do much better for disabled people than we have been doing. We agree with the independent taskforce on
	poverty and disability chaired by Sir Bert Massie, and with the think-tank the Institute for Public Policy Research, that we need to take people on ESA, other than those with the very shortest diagnoses, out of the Work programme and set up a new programme for them. We understand why Ministers wanted everybody in the same programme; it clearly has not worked. The Minister cannot pretend that the Work programme has been anything other than a failure for disabled people. We need a different approach. That is the clear lesson from Australia about the advantages of separate disability employment services. The new programme would move away from the outcome-based funding which has clearly not worked.
	We also need a much more localised approach. Partly because of those huge regional contracts in the Work programme, it has squeezed out the good local voluntary sector expertise that can do so much to help. We want instead a programme contracted at the city region/local enterprise partnership level, and we want provision to reflect the local labour market. We want local authorities, colleges, employers and, critically, the health service to be around the table. Such integration can be achieved at a city region level. It cannot be achieved, as the Government have shown, from Whitehall.
	The Working Well project in Manchester is a good example. It is for people claiming ESA who, after two years on the Work programme, do not have a job—of course, that is the great majority of people on ESA who start on the Work programme. It has been commissioned by the Greater Manchester combined local authorities. The project board is chaired by one of the chief executives and includes Jobcentre Plus, NHS England, the local drug and alcohol team, mental health trusts, colleges and adult education services. Protocols have been drawn up setting up how participants in that programme will be served with health and housing interventions. The funding model is different, with some up-front payments, not just job outcome payments. The contract requires that every client must be seen at least once per fortnight. We need those minimum standards. We have heard a lot from those participating in the Work programme, some of whom have received just an occasional phone call from their provider. We need the NHS to be part of the programme as well. That is the way forward to do a much better job.
	We cannot afford to continue wasting the potential of so many disabled people—to continue to tell disabled people by our actions that they are not “worth” it, as the Minister did so shockingly with his words. We need to value disabled people—to enable them to make a contribution, as so many could and, as we have heard in this debate, wish to. The employment gap between disabled people and others is no longer falling. We need to change policies to start bringing it down again. That is worth doing. We need to learn lessons from all the other OECD countries that have a higher employment rate than we do among disabled people. It needs a change of approach; it needs Ministers who respect disabled people; and I am afraid it also needs a change of Government.

Esther McVey: I want first to congratulate the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) on her maiden speech. It was
	delivered with humour, confidence and skill. I look forward to her future contributions in the House. I would also like to pay tribute to her predecessor, Jim Dobbin, a Member of the House who was much respected and well liked in all parts of the House. He will be sorely missed.
	Returning to today’s motion and debate, there is one point on which there is consensus and on which we all agree, which is that the words used by my noble Friend Lord Freud were wrong. And do you know what? He came forward immediately and said the same thing: he agreed. He apologised without reservation for his words and then went on to explain fully how he listened to the pleas of a father of a disabled child saying what he would do, who had used his same words. For clarity, nothing that my noble Friend said on that occasion was Government policy—not now and not in the future. National minimum wage entitlement applies to workers whether they are disabled or non-disabled. That is the Government’s policy.
	Let me confirm that this Government’s overarching ambition is to enable disabled people to fulfil their potential and fulfil their ambitions. The UK has a proud history of furthering the rights of disabled people. I am pleased to say that even in these very tough economic times, this Government have continued that progress and continued to maintain this country as a world leader in the support it gives to disabled people, spending £60 billion a year on benefits and support for those who face the greatest barriers to enable them to participate fully in society. We spend nearly double the OECD average, a fifth more than the European average, double what America spends and six times what Japan spends. In every year up to 2017-18, we will be spending more on disability benefits than in 2009-10.
	Let me explain what has happened over the last few years. No one would know this from listening to today’s debate, but there are now nearly 3 million disabled people in work, which is up 116,000 this year. Access to Work is helping more people—5,000 more than in 2011-12. An extra £15 million has been put into that programme. Attainment levels for pupils with special educational needs have increased since 2010-11 at both GCSE and A-level. The number of disabled students gaining their first degree has increased from nearly 32,000 to nearly 40,000 now. We have also reduced the proportion of disabled people in relative income poverty. These are the things that are happening. Social participation has increased. Sports participation has increased. Those are the facts that we need to set out.
	We have heard various Members of the House deliver some powerful speeches today. Let me turn first to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who said, “I want to look past labels; I want to make the world a better place. Isn’t that why most of us came into this House?” I believe that is true. He talked about the work he has done on disability hate crime. When I was the Minister for disabled people, I visited the work he was doing providing safe places for people to come forward and explain what was happening to them. He has played a key and crucial part in the journey towards people feeling able to come forward and talk about the issue.
	Many Members asked why we, in the epicentre of democracy and the home of free speech, should not be able to talk about the matters that really concern the public. Should we not be able to tackle them head-on,
	without shying away from some of the difficult issues? Was that not what Lord Freud was trying to do? My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) said that most clearly, as did my hon. Friends the Members for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) and for Ipswich (Ben Gummer).
	I want to move on to something that I hoped today’s debate would touch on, but it did not. I am going to read out what a mum, Candice Baxter from Grimsby, said. It would have been better if more time had been devoted today to listening to what some people who heard Lord Freud’s words had to say about them. She said:
	“My daughter’s ambition is to get a job in an office. She has Down’s syndrome. She thinks that, if she works hard, someone, somewhere will give her a job. At £6.50 an hour, it’s never going to happen.”
	Maybe at something else, it could. She continued:
	“The minimum wage protects from unscrupulous employers. But for my child, it is a barrier to meaningful employment. Indeed, because of the minimum wage, she is destined for a life of short-lived, voluntary non-jobs”.
	This is the mother of a disabled child, and she wanted this issue debated here today, but we never debated it. What we did was just talk about what Lord Freud said. This demonstrates what parents of disabled people wanted the debate to be about. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who should have talked about that, did not do so.

Kate Green: rose—

Esther McVey: I will not give way. I have listened to points raised for several hours, and many of them were wrong, particularly those about the Work programme and how we are helping disabled people through it. Over 60,000 people have got a job from the Work programme, which is now on track to deliver a 17% higher performance than Pathways to Work. That means it is supporting an additional 7,000 people back into work. Furthermore, the Work programme is helping more people than any previous employment programme did, which I think needs to be put on the record.
	When we talked about Remploy and the staff who used to work there, a couple of points made by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) were wrong. In fact, 80% of former employees have now found jobs or are receiving specialist tailored employment and support to help them find one. These are the sort of things we are doing to help disabled people, as well as helping an extra 116,000 people into work in the last year.
	When we talk about positive initiatives moving forward, I was delighted to be part of the Government who introduced Disability Confident, which was about moving forward and working with employers. How do we best engage with employers? It is about having a conversation with and listening to them, but it is equally for them to understand—this is where we started the conversation with employers—that the disability pound is worth £80 billion a year. It makes sense for employers to get involved with the disability movement and employ more disabled people. When they looked at the issue in a logical way and thought about who were the people shopping in their stores and listening to the things they were saying, they realised that they should get on board with Disability Confident. I am pleased to say that
	1,100 companies are involved. That conversation has partly led to 116,000 more disabled people getting into work this year.
	As for media coverage, we all agree that it is totally wrong to stereotype people or depict them in a negative way. That is why I was pleased to arrange a round table and to secure a motion for moving forward with some of the main players in the media to make sure that they employed more disabled people—not just in front of screen, but behind screen. They are now creating the programmes and the words said and moving forward so that everybody is portrayed in the best possible light.
	We have to reject the motion, because it is absolutely wrong, although many Government Members suggested that it would be best for us not to vote on it, and for the Opposition to remove it. We have every confidence in Lord Freud, who has done so much—working for both this Government and the Labour Government—to advance the status and the job outcomes of disabled people.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 243, Noes 302.

Question accordingly negatived.

Coalfield Communities

Dawn Primarolo: Before I call Michael Dugher to move the motion, may I say to both the Front-Bench teams in this debate, and to other Members in the Chamber, that more than 21 Members have already notified the Speaker that they wish to participate in it? May I ask the Front Benchers to bear that in mind in terms of the length of their speeches and the interventions they take? May I also remind the House that precedence will be given to those Members who have already indicated that they wish to speak in the debate and that it will finish at 7 pm?

Michael Dugher: I beg to move,
	That this House acknowledges the economic legacy of the pit closure programme in coalfield communities across the United Kingdom; notes that the recent release of the relevant 1984 Cabinet papers showed that the Government at the time misled the public about the extent of its pit closure plans and sought to influence police tactics; recognises the regeneration of former coalfield areas over the last fifteen years, the good work of organisations such as the Coalfield Regeneration Trust, and the largest industrial injury settlement in legal history secured by the previous Government for former miners suffering from bronchitis and emphysema; further recognises the ongoing problems highlighted recently by the report produced by Sheffield Hallam University on The State of the Coalfields, which revealed that there are still significant problems for the majority of Britain’s coalfield communities, such as fewer jobs, lower business formation rates, higher unemployment rates, more people with serious health issues, higher numbers in receipt of welfare benefits and a struggling voluntary and community sector; and therefore calls for the continued regeneration and much needed support for coalfield communities as part of a wider programme to boost growth in Britain’s regions.
	After 30 years under lock and key, the Cabinet papers and the Prime Minister’s private office correspondence, recently released under the 30-year rule, about the 1984 miners strike have exposed one of the darkest chapters in our history. Contrary to denial after denial from Conservative Ministers at the time and from the National Coal Board, the Cabinet papers show that the Government of the day did have a secret plan from as early as September 1983 to close 75 pits, run down capacity by 25 million tonnes and make 65,000 men redundant. Many people warned at the time that there was a secret plan, but it is no less shocking to see, in black and white, in official Cabinet papers, just how much the public were misled.

Graham Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman apologise now to the British people for making out the Thatcher Government were the major closer of mines and the cause of lost jobs, given that the Labour Government in the ‘60s and ‘70s closed 129 more mines than the Thatcher Government and caused the loss of more than 30,000 excess jobs? Apologise now.

Michael Dugher: That is pretty desperate stuff, at an early stage of the debate.

Graham Stuart: It is true.

Michael Dugher: If the hon. Gentleman wants to come to Barnsley and across South Yorkshire—across the coalfields—and say that Labour closed all the pits, I say good luck with that. He is even more out of touch than we thought.

Ronnie Campbell: Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman what happened in the ‘60s. The then Government closed all the small inland pits and made the super-pits on the coast, and all the men working at the little pits went to work in the super-pits.

Michael Dugher: Of course my hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. The truth is that 43% of mining jobs did go in the 1960s as part of that consolidation, which was agreed by the National Coal Board and the unions ahead of Harold Wilson’s new plan for coal, which of course the Tories immediately cancelled. There is absolutely no comparison between the consolidation we saw in the immediate aftermath of the second world war and the complete destruction and decimation of the coal industry that we saw in the ‘80s and ‘90s.
	One of the Cabinet documents was a record of a meeting the then Prime Minister held in Downing street on 15 September 1983. It states absolutely clearly that Mr MacGregor, the chairman of the NCB,
	“had it in mind over the three years 1983-85 that a further 75 pits would be closed”.
	The final paragraph of the document reads:
	“It was agreed that no record of this meeting should be circulated.”
	What a surprise.
	We know that significant pressure was placed on the Home Secretary to step up police measures against striking miners to escalate the dispute, which again is something that is denied. Released documents from 14 March 1984 show that Ministers at the time pressured the Home Secretary to ensure that chief constables adopted
	“a more vigorous interpretation of their duties.”
	At the time, it was claimed that the police were acting entirely on their own constitutional independence—what a joke.
	Earlier this year, the National Union of Mineworkers, led by the excellent General Secretary Chris Kitchen, produced an impressive report, drafted by Mr Nicky Stubbs, following months of forensic analysis of the recently released Cabinet papers. The report has brought even more disturbing details to light. It shows that Ministers were even prepared to override normal judicial processes, and ensure that local magistrate courts dealt with cases arising from the dispute in a much quicker fashion. It also outlines how Ministers conspired to cover up the extent of their plans for the mining industry. There are numerous quotations contained in the Cabinet papers. For example, one said:
	“No other papers should be circulated for that meeting…and that discussion of coal strategy at the meeting should be avoided”.
	It also asked
	“how to arrange these meetings so that as little as possible of the more sensitive aspects”—
	that will be the pit closure programme—
	“is committed to paper.”
	In addition, it was decided that instead of plans being written down, Ministers would give “a short oral briefing”. I am sure they did. Possibly the most shocking revelation from the Cabinet papers was that the Conservative Government of the day were willing to go so far as to declare a state of emergency and to deploy the Army against the miners to gain victory during the strike.
	It is extraordinary to think that, all these years later, a British Government would seriously consider deploying British armed forces against their own people—ordinary, hard-working, decent, law-abiding, tax-paying, patriotic men who were guilty of nothing more than legally withdrawing their labour to defend their livelihood and to defend an industry that brought such great wealth to the country.

Conor Burns: Is not this one of the most desperate motions to come forward from the official Opposition? I am talking about attacking a Prime Minister who is 18 months dead and cannot defend herself. Is it not the case that this motion is not about the events of 30 years ago, but about trying to unite the Labour party around the desperate leadership of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband)?

Michael Dugher: What is desperate is the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Look at the wording of the motion. Around 5.5 million people live in the former coalfields. The anger about what happened in the 1980s still exists today. It just shows how completely out of touch the Government are.

Kevan Jones: My hon. Friend will also know that, in the 1960s, the Labour Government had a plan which included not only moving people to bigger pits but bringing industry into the coalfields of North Durham. That did not happen. That was vindictive; it closed down communities, and communities such as mine are still suffering today.

Michael Dugher: As always, my hon. Friend brings to this place insight from his own constituency. Fundamentally, the Cabinet papers also show the true scale of the dishonesty in maintaining that the strike was about an industrial dispute based on economics, and it puts paid to the nonsense assertion at the time that Ministers were somehow neutral bystanders. The fact is that the Government of the day saw the strike in political terms. Far from Ministers being non-interventionist, they were in fact the micro-managers of this dispute.
	One paper from a Downing street meeting shows that Mrs Thatcher told Ferdinand Mount, a senior policy adviser, that her Government should
	“neglect no opportunity to erode trade union membership.”
	In a paper prepared for Mrs Thatcher by the Downing street head of policy, the now right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), it was said that miners had a “revolutionary” strategy, and it urged the Prime Minister to return to her original plan of
	“encouraging a war of attrition”
	against the miners. That completely reinforces the view at the time that the Government of the day regarded the striking miners as—to use that most infamous of phrases—“the enemy within.”

Mark Spencer: I hope that the shadow Minister will recognise that one of the fundamentals of trade unionism is that the union is there to represent its members, that it has a ballot and that it acts upon the result of that ballot. One of the fundamental flaws in the NUM strategy was that it did not have a ballot, which divided the work force.

Michael Dugher: I completely agree. Should the NUM have had a ballot? Yes, it should. Would it have won a ballot? Yes, it certainly would have done. Let there be no mistake about that.

Andrew Bridgen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Dugher: I am not giving way because it will be totally pointless. Many Opposition Members wish to speak. Government Members might be rattling around a little, but there are many on the Opposition Benches who wish to speak, so I will make some progress.
	The Cabinet papers demonstrate clearly that Mrs Thatcher’s aim was to defeat the miners and destroy the industry that employed them. Tory Ministers from that time have not learned a thing. The noble Lord Tebbit recently likened the miners strike to the Falklands war. Lord Tebbit actually compared the miners strike to the military invasion of sovereign British territory by a foreign enemy. What a modern day insight into the mentality of Conservative Ministers in the 1980s.

Andrew Bridgen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Dugher: I am not giving way.
	Earlier this year, Labour launched our Justice for the Coalfields campaign. This is about ensuring that we have proper transparency, properly acknowledging what happened in the past and getting to the truth. Without the truth there can be no justice and without justice there can be no reconciliation. The first step is for the House to acknowledge what the 1984 Cabinet papers spell out. Just like Saville and Hillsborough, we must face up to the failures of the past. We must acknowledge the truth and we must learn from what happened. The motion today provides that opportunity and I hope that all hon. Members will take it.
	The Opposition have been clear that given that the Cabinet papers show that the public were misled about the plans for pit closures, there should be a formal apology for the Government’s actions during the strike. As for the revelations in the Cabinet papers, which show that the Government did try to influence police tactics, all the details of the interactions and communications between the Government and the police at the time of the strike should now be published.
	Thirty years on, we still need a proper investigation into what happened at Orgreave. It was welcome that South Yorkshire police referred themselves to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, but we are still no closer to an investigation. There are serious allegations that police officers assaulted miners at Orgreave, and then committed perjury and misconduct in public office and perverted the course of justice in the subsequent prosecution of 95 miners on riot charges, all of which collapsed in court. What happened at Orgreave was not just a black day for South Yorkshire, it was a black day for this country. It is indefensible and completely shameful that there is still no investigation and the whole truth has yet to come out.

David Anderson: My hon. Friend is right to mention Orgreave, but it was not the only place. In Mansfield, exactly the same thing happened when at the end of a peaceful demonstration police
	stormed into the crowds that were left, 45 people were locked up and were banned from picketing and that case fell apart. Up and down this country, the police rampaged through villages where people had a history of being peaceful, and men were locked up who should never have been locked up because they were deliberately attacked by police who were not even from that part of the world.

Michael Dugher: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, born, I know, of his close personal experience. That is why we have said that we can see from the Cabinet papers that there clearly was pressure to influence police tactics. We have said, “Why do not the Government just come clean and publish all the communications between Ministers and the police at the time and clear all of this up once and for all?”
	What happened at Orgreave was a black day. It is indefensible that there is still no investigation, and frankly, the IPCC needs to get its act together. Opposition Members have said that if the Government cannot or will not undertake a proper investigation, they should consider initiating a swift, independent review, along the lines of the Ellison review.
	As I have mentioned, the Thatcher Government’s policy chief at the time was the right hon. Member for Wokingham. In his tribute to Lady Thatcher in the House last April, he argued that all the Government had tried to do in the 1980s was modernise the industry. But the industry was not modernised or consolidated; it was completely decimated. What we saw was a systematic attempt to destroy an entire industry and an entire way of life.
	What is the legacy of that? Today only three deep-pit coal mines remain open in the UK, out of the 170 in operation in 1984. Coal production is falling. It fell by 25% between 2012 and 2013, to an all-time low of 13 million tonnes. The future of Thoresby and Kellingley coal mines has now been in limbo for many months, which raises further concerns about energy security. We urgently need clarity from the Government on whether they plan to provide state aid.

Andrew Bridgen: rose—

Michael Dugher: The hon. Gentleman can jump up and down to his heart’s content, but I have already made it quite clear that I will not give way.
	Following the strike, many coalfield communities were knocked to their knees, and they have been struggling to get back up ever since. When the pits closed, a whole way of life disappeared virtually overnight. It is impossible to over-estimate the trauma that caused. The entire economic system that supported those pit villages, and most of the social infrastructure, was gone. After their so-called victory over the miners was secured, the Government simply walked way, with no transition plan in place and nothing for the people in the communities they had destroyed. [Interruption.] Just take the example of Grimethorpe in my constituency—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) is still at it. He can come to Grimethorpe any day of the week if he likes—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I am fed up with hearing the Whip, the Chair of the Education Committee and a Minister heckling constantly in this debate. We are pressed for time so—this goes for both sides—can we please listen to the debate and to the arguments being made, rather than shouting across the Chamber, which is what has been going on so far?

Michael Dugher: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will repeat my invitation to the hon. Gentleman: he is welcome to come with me to Grimethorpe any time he chooses—I can guarantee him an interesting welcome—and share some of his views on the strike and the pit closures programme. It would certainly be an interesting meeting.

Andrew Bridgen: rose—

Michael Dugher: I am absolutely not giving way, and that is the last time I will say that to the hon. Gentleman. I can think of nothing that he could bring to these proceedings.
	Within a year of its pit closing, Grimethorpe—the setting for the village of Grimley in the classic film “Brassed Off”—was officially listed by the EU as the poorest village in England, and among the most hard up in the whole of Europe. Crime increased from 30% below the national average to 20% above it. The 1981 census recorded 44% of Grimethorpe’s population working as miners. After the pit closed, unemployment was above 50% for almost the entire 1990s.
	Of course, all that precipitated rocketing spending on social security benefits in the years after. Despite all the myths, the truth is that welfare dependency was central to Mrs Thatcher’s legacy in Britain. Even today, we are still dealing with first, second and third-generation unemployment. Some miners became self-employed. Others eventually got jobs, although usually far less rewarding, far less secure and far less well paid. Others simply moved away. Many never worked again.
	Of course, there have been many improvements in recent years, thanks to regeneration funding from Europe, the efforts of many good local authorities and 13 years of regeneration and investment under the previous Labour Government. Over a 10-year period, from 2000 to 2010, the Government invested £1.5 billion in initiatives to support coalfield communities. The Coalfields Regeneration Trust is a great example of the good work that has been done. It has invested over £260 million over the past 15 years in projects that have made a positive difference to the lives of people in coalfield communities. The current Government have rightly continued to support the CRT, which delivers great services that help people gain new skills, achieve qualifications, find work, set up and grow new businesses and become more active in their communities. I pay tribute to people at the CRT, particularly Mr Peter McNestry, its chair, and Mick Clapham, one of my predecessors in this place and a brilliant lifelong champion of people in the coalfields.

David Hamilton: The CRT has done a tremendous amount of work. Was my hon. Friend as disappointed as I was when the issue was
	devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly and the first thing they did was to cut the money?

Michael Dugher: My hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful point. I hope that people in Scotland are listening to this debate and understand the enormous contribution that the CRT has made across the whole country.
	A lot more needs to be done. A recent report by Sheffield Hallam university on the state of the coalfields showed that there are still significant economic and social problems for the majority of coalfield communities. It states that since 2010 many voluntary community organisations in coalfield areas have been driven into crisis. Problems in coalfield communities include fewer jobs, higher unemployment rates, more people with serious health issues, and greater numbers of people in receipt of welfare benefits.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members have no idea whatsoever of the devastation they inflicted on these communities? They are doing it again, because they are cutting funds to local government, which means that the services that are very much needed in these communities cannot be provided, and people are not getting work either.

Michael Dugher: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
	Let me take the example of my own borough. A report published in April 2014 by Barnsley council on jobs and business growth concluded that for all the progress made in recent years, Barnsley will need 45,000 new jobs to reach the average employment density for the country. It is clear that continued support is vital for all the 5.5 million people in Britain who live in former mining areas. By supporting this motion, we can send a clear message to them that we understand this and will give them the support they need.

Andrew Bridgen: rose—

Michael Dugher: I am definitely not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. If he wants to speak in the debate, he may be a fairly lonely voice on his Benches, but perhaps he could listen to the numerous Labour Members who will speak, which would certainly do him a power of good.
	Those of us who lived through and grew up during the miners strike still feel a strong sense of injustice. That is certainly true for very many of my constituents in Barnsley in south Yorkshire. At the time of the strike, I was a boy living by the Yorkshire Main colliery in Edlington, then a pit village outside Doncaster. Members of my own family helped to sink that pit more than 100 years ago. In 1984, I had family and friends on strike. I remember, as a boy, proudly marching with miners from the Yorkshire Main on the day they went back to work in 1985. Like so many hon. Members far more closely involved than I was, I saw at first hand the impact the strike had, and, in particular, the impact of the pit closure programme. That sense of injustice endures today because of the failure to hold those in power to account, and because of the scars that still remain on the memories and on the landscapes of so many coalfield
	communities. Of course, we cannot undo the damage that was done, but we can shine a light on what happened, and we can promise to provide the necessary support still needed in coalfield communities up and down the country.
	We should not forget what a massive contribution the coalfields made to our country. The communities that sprang up in the large pit villages and towns helped to sustain an industry that powered an industrial revolution which brought tremendous wealth to this country. Even by the mid-1980s, nearly 200,000 people were still employed in mining jobs, making a massive contribution to the country. Nor should we forget that many miners lost their lives, were badly injured while doing their job, or suffered debilitating illnesses later in life. That is why the previous Government secured a compensation settlement for former miners suffering from crippling bronchitis and emphysema—the largest industrial injury payout in legal history.
	The sacrifices made by those who worked in the industry came home to me very recently when I visited the national mining memorial at Senghenydd with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David). That was the site of the worst mining disaster in Britain, where, 101 years ago almost to the day, 439 miners—men and boys—together with one rescuer, were killed. This followed the previous worst ever disaster nearly 50 years before in Barnsley, when 361 miners and 27 rescuers died in 1866 in two separate explosions at the Oaks pit near Stairfoot in my constituency. It is right that we properly honour all those who died.
	I think today about the immeasurable contribution that so many people made in the coal industry. There once was a time when the Labour Benches would have been full of ex-colliery workers; today there are but a distinguished few, yet they continue to bring great wisdom and an invaluable insight to the House of Commons.
	I think today of my own constituents, many of whom worked in the pits, and I think about members of my own family, too. Frank Oleisky was a miner at the Yorkshire Main colliery who died in 1954 aged 47, not much older than I am today. He left a wife and six children. One of his sons went to work at the pit and was on strike in 1984. One of his daughters is my grandmother and she is watching this debate today.
	As a country, we cannot do enough to mark the huge contribution and sacrifice made by those who worked in the coal industry for so many decades, but we have a chance today to ensure a brighter future and justice for the coalfields. It will come too late—far too late—for many of the former miners and their families who lived through the strike and the pit closure programme that followed. However, after the truth was so brutally exposed in the recently released official Cabinet Papers from 1984, we owe it to them and to the people who live in the coalfields toady to see that justice for the coalfields is finally granted.

Matthew Hancock: It is undoubtedly true that the history of Britain’s coal mining communities is a long and proud one and tied inescapably to the long history of this island. From the early mines to the mass expansion of the industrial revolution to the post-war decline of deep
	coal mining, the fortunes of the communities and of coal were heavily intertwined. At its height, almost 3,000 collieries produced about 300 million tonnes of coal, and each colliery was surrounded by a close-knit community.

Mark Spencer: Did the Minister notice that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher), spent 24 minutes looking backwards and one minute looking forwards? Does the Minister intend to use his speech to look forward at how we can help improve coalfields and work together in this Chamber to improve the plight of the communities that live there?

Matthew Hancock: I welcome my hon. Friend’s tone. It was a pity and a surprise to hear the shadow Minister say he could think of nothing that Conservative Members could bring to this debate. That was deeply regrettable.

Stephen Hepburn: The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) makes a good point about looking forward, but do not a Tory Minister’s recent comments on the value of disabled people and the Tories’ desire to make this country a tax haven for the rich show that they are still the same vindictive party that closed the pits in the ’80s?

Matthew Hancock: No, they do not. I think the hon. Gentleman is about three hours late for the previous debate. During my time in this role, I have secured the future of the existing pits, two of them in particular. I have personally worked with the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, the National Union of Mineworkers and the owners of those pits to make sure they have the financing necessary to stay open.
	I will take no lectures from the Labour party, because I am from Nottinghamshire coal mining stock. The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) spoke of his grandmother. My grandmother is also watching. She is 100 years old and was born in Bestwood in Nottinghamshire. They were a family of miners and all her brothers went down the pit.
	Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), I want to concentrate on the future, but the Labour party seem interested only in talking about the past.

Alan Beith: Looking to the future, particularly that of the coal-fired Lynemouth power station in my constituency, will the Minister assist my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in his efforts to ensure that we get European state aid approval for the conversion to biomass of the Lynemouth power station?

Matthew Hancock: Ensuring that we have a broad mix of energy supplies is of course a topical issue. We are working on the future of conversion to biomass. That relates to a slightly broader point: Labour Members voted for an acceleration of the closure of our coal-fired power stations, yet another group of them have turned up today to argue that we should do more to support the coal mining industry. Those positions are completely inconsistent.

David Mowat: The Minister is right. On 4 December, Labour Members were whipped to vote for the accelerated closure of the UK coal industry. I have checked the list of those who so voted, and one of them was the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher). We are talking about looking forward, but on Lords amendment 105 the hon. Gentleman voted for the accelerated closure of the coal industry. You couldn’t make it up.

Matthew Hancock: The inconsistency between how the shadow Minister voted and what he has said today is evident for everybody to see. Labour Members voted for the faster-than-planned closure of coal-fired power stations, and having had 13 years in power to do all the things they are asking for, all they can do today is to complain about what happened in the 1980s.

Grahame Morris: Now that we are down to the last three working pits—Kellingley, Thoresby and Hatfield—will the Minister take this opportunity to make the clear statement of intent that he will do everything possible to prevent the closure of those collieries by December 2015?

Matthew Hancock: I have already worked hard to make sure that we get the funding necessary. I am grateful to the NUM for the work that it has done to support one of the three collieries financially. I have been determined that this is done on a commercial basis to keep the option of further support open. I and officials in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are now working with the company to prepare a case that might go before the European Union on exactly that point.

Graham Stuart: My right hon. Friend will have noticed that the shadow Minister said that coal mining communities would struggle to accept the fact that Labour Governments between 1964 and 1979 shut 283 mines, with the loss of 223,000 jobs—more than were closed under the Conservatives. The fact that those communities would struggle to accept that is because of misinformation and the use of this subject for political benefit, rather than to share the truth. The shadow Minister should go out and tell people in coal mining communities the facts about Labour’s record then and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) has just said, now.

Matthew Hancock: Quite so. My hon. Friend anticipates the next facts in my speech. In 1947, 958 collieries were in production, and 20 years later that number had fallen to 483. The shadow Minister said that on Labour’s watch there was a consolidation, whereas in the 1980s there were closures. However, between 1964 and 1970, under Harold Wilson’s Labour Government, 252 pits closed and more than 200,000 jobs in coal production were lost.

Jonathan Edwards: I want to take the Minister back to looking forward. Such was the impact of the pit closures that the communities I represent in south Wales are now the poorest parts of northern Europe and qualify for the highest levels of regional aid. Will he inform the House and those communities why his Government’s policy is to repatriate regional policy, depriving south Wales of billions of pounds of investment?

Matthew Hancock: Having strong local policy is of course very important to ensuring not only that we support mining activity where we can within the EU state aid rules, but crucially that we support the communities around pits. That is our policy. I will get on to the future, but I keep being asked about the past.

Dennis Skinner: rose—

Matthew Hancock: Talking of which.

Dennis Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman now has to face the prospect of deciding what he does about the three deep mines in Britain—Hatfield, Kellingley and Thoresby. I have asked him several times during his short tenure in his current position to realise that it will cost money, but that if we had £70 million of state aid, we could save those three pits right until they exhaust their reserves. Set against the fact that in February the Tory Government took £700 million out of the mineworkers’ pension scheme, we only want £70 million of it to save these three pits. Instead of rabbiting on about who closed what, save these three.

Matthew Hancock: The irony is that I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman to do what we can to do just that. He will know that the first thing that I did on taking this post was to ensure that Government funding was available on a commercial basis to tackle short-term cash shortages. We are now working on a proposition to go through the EU processes, which must, under the rules, come from the company. Whatever heat and light there is around this issue, I am working on those schemes. However, it must be done within the constraints of the EU state aid rules. I would be happy to work with the hon. Gentleman to do what we can to secure the future of the pits.

Andrew Bridgen: As a Member of this House who represents a coal mining community, the major conurbation of which is called Coalville, and whose grandfather was a coal miner, I am not surprised that the shadow Minister did not want to take my intervention. I witnessed the intimidation of miners who wanted to work in south Derbyshire, north-west Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire during the miners’ strike. I do not share the despondency of the shadow Minister. The latest figures show that my constituency of North West Leicestershire has the highest economic growth in the country at nearly 5% and that our unemployment rate is less than 2%.

Matthew Hancock: I shall come on to how best to support communities that used to have a large coal mining presence. In Yorkshire, unemployment has fallen by 30% over the past four years, going by the claimant count. That demonstrates that having a long-term economic plan is the best way to help communities get through these difficult times.
	The transition of an economy that was dominated by outdated heavy industry into a modern service-based economy was necessary, and it has formed the basis of the nation’s current prosperity. That is not much disputed these days.

John Redwood: The Minister is making an excellent speech. The shadow Minister said that the Government considered using the Army in
	the dispute. May I reassure my right hon. Friend that when I advised the then Prime Minister that the Army should on no account be involved in the dispute, she said, “Of course it won’t be” ? And it was not.

Matthew Hancock: The fact is that the Army was not used in the dispute. None the less, the dispute was a serious consideration in respect of energy security in this country, so it is no wonder that the questions about how to deal with it were broad, especially given the political nature of those attacking the Government. That is entirely understandable. Nevertheless, the dispute was dealt with in a way that did not involve putting the Army on the streets.

Conor Burns: We heard a very partial version of events in the 1980s from the shadow Minister. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest betrayal of mine workers in this country was by Arthur Scargill, who led his people into an illegal strike without a ballot, against the NUM’s own rules?

Matthew Hancock: Of course I agree with that. It would benefit the House if Members understood that the process of becoming a modern economy, which was a difficult process, could have been achieved far better through partnership than through adversarial means. Indeed, that spirit of partnership is what we have now and it is starting to work.
	It is a great pity that the motion focuses so heavily on reliving the battles of the past. It is a demonstration of the Labour party at its worst—totally uninterested in the future. I want to talk about the future.

Wayne David: Will the Minister give way?

Matthew Hancock: I will give way in a second and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say whether he supports what I am about to say.
	Orgreave, which was the site of one of the biggest confrontations between miners and the police, is now home to Sheffield university’s advanced manufacturing research centre. I have been there. That partnership between businesses, universities and, no doubt, trade unions shows the sort of approach that this country could easily have taken to the difficult transition 30-odd years ago, but that was turned down through the political antics of Arthur Scargill and his friends.

Wayne David: To deal with the present, is the Minister pleased that wage levels are plummeting in former coal mining areas?

Matthew Hancock: We are doing everything we can to turn the economy around. The shadow Chancellor himself admitted that, after an economic calamity of the scale we saw, it is inevitable that people will be affected. Of course they will be. Of course, when national income falls—as happened in the great recession—that impacts on people; national income is only the sum of the incomes of people in that nation. Until the Labour party understands that our economic fortunes as a nation are tied to our economic policy, and that the calamity of Labour’s economic policy led to a calamity for family incomes, it will never be trusted with the economy again.

Ronnie Campbell: The Minister says it was a partnership, but it was not much of a partnership when Lord Heseltine was at the Dispatch Box and closed 31 pits, with jobs losses for 60,000 miners. That wasn’t a very good partnership, was it?

Matthew Hancock: Harold Wilson closed 252 pits, with more than 200,000 jobs lost, so we can trade figures easily on that point.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene, and I apologise for taking him back a little. He referred to mining in Britain, but in Northern Ireland, in Coalisland in County Tyrone—the county in which I grew up—there was a mine, and a number of miners were killed and their bodies were never recovered. Although there are national memorials elsewhere in the United Kingdom, I would welcome the Minister’s commitment to look at some sort of memorial to record the fact that we did have mining in Northern Ireland at that time.

Matthew Hancock: I will absolutely look at that, and it is an opportunity to pay tribute to those miners who were lost and to their families. Throughout the history of mining it was always a dangerous occupation, and miners were lost in almost every community. We should pay tribute to those who died in that way.

David Anderson: The Minister is generous in giving way. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) said he was convinced that the Army was not involved, but some of us who were directly involved would dispute that on a personal level. The only way to get to the bottom of the issue, and other points that have been raised, is for the Minister to do the right thing and release all the papers. Do not hide any more papers, as the Shrewsbury 24 papers have been hidden; their campaign is now 42 years old. Release all the papers, and a lot of the arguments we have might disappear.

Matthew Hancock: The papers are being released as part of the 30-year rule, so that is happening under the normal process. Indeed, we would not be having this debate about the past had the Labour party not wanted to spend more time looking through papers from the mid-1980s than concentrating on how to fix the mess it created in this country.

John Mann: The Minister lauded the advanced manufacturing centre in Sheffield, which was set up by a Labour Government, and asked why it was not created in the 1980s. I established the advanced manufacturing centres at Barnsley college and Gwent college using union money in 1986. Why did the Tory Government refuse us money for that initiative 20 years earlier?

Matthew Hancock: The question is about how we tackle these problems for the future. Although coal mining areas were hard hit by the great recession, it is true, and ought to be acknowledged, that unemployment is now falling in every one of the communities affected.

Helen Goodman: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but let me bring him bang up to date. Durham coalfield was one of the
	biggest coalfields, but when this Government switched money from public services to capital, the north-east got 0.3% of the money. Will the Minister admit that that is utterly disgraceful?

Matthew Hancock: Unemployment in the hon. Lady’s constituency has fallen by 30% since the election. Next time she gets up she should mention that, rather than shouting across the Dispatch Box. In South Staffordshire, unemployment has fallen by 58% since 2010. It has fallen by 51% in South Derbyshire, and as I said earlier, by 30% in Yorkshire. That goes to show the central truth that the best way to help coalfield communities now is to have a strong and healthy economy, and we cannot do that unless we have an economic plan.

Andrew Bridgen: Will the Minister also congratulate businesses in north-west Leicestershire around Coalville, where unemployment has fallen by 60% since 2010?

Matthew Hancock: I absolutely will. The long-term economic plan is clearly working for Coalville, as it is for South Staffordshire, Durham, Yorkshire and all over the country. [Interruption.] The more muttering I get from Opposition Members, the more I think we should repeat the fact that unemployment is falling in every region of the country.

Graham Stuart: The fate of young people is particularly important. Will the Minister share his dismay that so many young people were unemployed throughout even the good years of the previous Labour Government? The welcome news recently has been record falls in youth unemployment. The dignity of work, the pleasure and the future it brings are what we should be celebrating today. We should not listening to the party political point scoring of the Labour party.

Matthew Hancock: I could not have put it better myself. As a Minister in this Government I am incredibly proud of the fact that youth unemployment is falling sharply. It is happening throughout the country, whether in the coalfields or in areas where there was no coal mining, and that is because we have a long-term economic plan. The biggest risk to those young people who have jobs now, but did not have them four years ago, would be a Labour Government.

Kevan Jones: My figures are on page 23 of the Minister’s file, if he would like to look. He quotes figures, but does he realise that the jobs being created in coalfield communities—in County Durham, for example—are low paid, part time and insecure? The scandalous thing that I came across in my constituency last week is that some young people are not in any figures at all. They have opted out of the system. They are working in the black economy, which is clearly having an effect on the EU rebate. That is what is happening on the ground. The Minister can quote as many figures as he likes, but—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. In fairness, we have a lot of speakers, including, in fact, the hon. Gentleman, and I hope to get everyone in. We will not have long interventions.

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Gentleman may like to deny the figures, but I do not think of them only as figures; they are the livelihoods of individual young people, which are being given to them by this Conservative-led Government.
	I want to talk about some of the specific actions that we have taken under the Government. I join the shadow Minister in paying tribute to the work of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. Established in 1999 to support and improve communities at the grass roots, the trust has created and safeguarded more than 4,000 jobs and helped 125,000 to gain new skills. The trust’s funding has helped to put it on a long-term footing.
	Against that background, the plan to give back power to local communities, using local plans and local enterprise partnerships, will allow us to focus support through growth deals and city deals to ensure that support from Government is tailored to individual, local need. Domestic coal production still contributes to our national coal consumption—about a quarter of our total needs—and continues to be an important employer, especially in areas of low employment, with 4,000 people being employed in the industry. We must support them, as I mentioned in my exchange with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner).

Stephen Hepburn: What does the Minister value more? He talks about new opportunities in this day and age. Does he value an apprenticeship with the old National Coal Board, with apprentices being well trained for four years and coming out as top engineers, or does he prefer and value more the apprenticeships that have been encouraged under this Government, such as the sandwich architect apprenticeship in Subway?

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken if he is talking down apprenticeships. As the former apprenticeships Minister, I will have no truck with people talking down apprentices or attacking them. The previous Government said, “You’re not of value unless you went to university”, but our Government say, “We support people who go to university and we support people who go through apprenticeships.” We will not have some arbitrary target. We say, “We want to support you in the choices that you make.” We will not accept any lectures from the Labour party on the massive expansion of apprenticeships under this Government in the coalfields and beyond.
	I want to place it on the record that we will support the collieries, especially those of Kellingley and Thoresby, and work with them to ensure that we help them as much as we can within the EU state aid rules. It is important to ensure that we support the coal mining that continues, but also that we put in place the broader partnership for a stronger economy that will help people across the coalfields and the whole country. Let us not return to the failed politics of the past, represented by the Opposition today, but continue to strengthen that economy for the nation’s future.

Jimmy Hood: I welcome the debate, which is 30 years after the miners’ strike. Much has been written and said of that period, but so much of what really happened to miners, their families and communities—there was evidence earlier
	today—has not been told. Today, I want to put on record the miners’ strike through the eyes of a Nottinghamshire miner, which I was proud to be.
	In 1984, I was a miners’ leader on one of the most profitable pits in the country. I was the National Union of Mineworkers secretary at Ollerton colliery. We hear so much about the Government, but there is now a Tesco where that top 10 pit once was. We were five years into Margaret Thatcher’s reign as Tory Prime Minister. She was well into her Government’s de-industrialisation of the British economy and it was the miners’ turn. From her point of view, it was unfinished business from the 1972 and 1974 miners’ strikes.
	Margaret Thatcher commissioned Nicholas Ridley, her head guru, to devise a plan to run down the mining industry and destroy the National Union of Mineworkers. The 1979 Ridley plan was born. Its basis was to build massive coal stocks, double nuclear power stations, change trade union laws to weaken trade unions’ right to strike and defend their members, and to use the powers of the state to attack working people.

David Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jimmy Hood: No, I am not giving way.
	The Prime Minister had tried that in 1981 but had to back off when her coal stocks were too low. The hapless Energy Secretary, now Lord Howell, was the fall guy for her failure, and she later sacked him, but her 1981 unpreparedness was not to be repeated in 1984, when she decided she was better ready to crush the miners and their union.
	At the beginning of the miners’ strike, there were 250 pits and 250,000 miners. Thatcher had previously appointed Sir Ian MacGregor, the former American banker, as chairman of British Steel to run down the steel industry. His reward for his success in that was to be given the reins to do the same in the coal industry. He was made chairman of the National Coal Board.
	The miners had been on an overtime ban for six months to oppose the declared NCB pit closures. The NUM did not want to go on strike and would have continued with the overtime ban indefinitely—the overtime ban was running the coal stocks down by the hour. Mrs Thatcher was facing another 1981 defeat and decided to provoke the NUM into taking strike action. On 5 March, the Tory Government announced an accelerated closure of five pits: Cortonwood colliery in Yorkshire, Bullcliffe Wood colliery in Derby, Herrington colliery in Durham, Snowdown colliery in Kent, and Polmaise in Scotland. The NUM in those areas immediately went on strike, and Ollerton, where I was the lead official, was picketed by Yorkshire miners the very next day, fighting to defend their jobs.
	For the next week, thousands of police were imported into Nottinghamshire to stop picketing. Hundreds of miners were arrested and imprisoned in Mansfield police station and other places before draconian bail conditions were imposed on picketing miners.

Toby Perkins: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We heard earlier about how miners were pushed into dependency on benefits, but the other tragic legacy of the miners’ strike was the
	number of miners who were criminalised by what happened. Will my hon. Friend say something about the impact on proud people when they were told that they were criminals because of what happened in that miners’ strike?

Jimmy Hood: I was born a miner. Mining communities were the most law-abiding communities one could wish for. During the miners strike, people were put in prison who had never seen a prison even from afar.
	Much has been written about violence on picket lines. The 30-year rule on publishing Cabinet papers needs to be examined, and the conduct of the Home Secretary in directing police and courts must be disclosed. By the way, the current exposé of Sir Leon Brittan, the then Home Secretary, with accusations of improper conduct with children, will not come as a surprise to the striking miners of 1984, as many of them—

Conor Burns: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Mr Hood) has just made profoundly serious accusations against a noble Lord. Is that in order?

Lindsay Hoyle: In fairness, I did not hear as I was talking to a Whip. It is up to each Member to decide what they say, and they must make that decision.

Jimmy Hood: I will repeat part of the point that I am making. The rumours that Sir Leon Brittan was involved in misconduct with children do not come as news to miners who were on strike in 1984, because when miners were going into the dock in magistrates courts we were aware and miners were declaring—

Matthew Hancock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jimmy Hood: No, I will not give way. I will give way when I have finished my point.
	Miners were saying in the dock in all the magistrates courts throughout the strike that they objected to the instructions coming from the Home Secretary when there were reports of child abuse linked with that same Home Secretary.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. It is up to each Member, but we have to be very careful about what we say. We must consider what we are saying and what the implications are.

Jimmy Hood: Obviously, I accept what you say, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am just repeating what I read in the papers—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Time is up. Five minutes have gone. I call Mr Mark Spencer.

Mark Spencer: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Matthew Hancock: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mark Spencer: I give way.

Matthew Hancock: Does my hon. Friend agree that at the end of this debate, those on the Opposition Front Bench should dissociate themselves from the disgusting remarks of the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Mr Hood) and from the mistaken comparison of these issues to the behaviour of Jimmy Savile, which was astonishingly made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher)? If they do not, people will understand that the Labour party has got its priorities completely wrong.

Mark Spencer: I am grateful for that intervention.
	I am the only Member of Parliament in the Chamber today with a working colliery. Although I would like to say that it is a pleasure to speak in this debate, the truth is that I am quite sad to be doing so, as it is a massive missed opportunity to look at the future of our coalfields and former coalfields and how we could work together across the House to try and raise standards within those communities and support them.
	We can spend lots of time looking backwards at what happened, and it gives me no pleasure to look back at some of the communities that the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Mr Hood) mentioned, which happen to be in my constituency. We can talk about how the NUM flooded Nottinghamshire with flying pickets to try to prevent my miners from working in those coalfields, and we can talk about how, if Scargill had had a ballot, the Nottinghamshire miners would have had a vote in that ballot and it would have given a lot more power to some of the arguments that we are hearing.

Peter Hain: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the former chief constable of Devon and Cornwall, John Alderson, complained officially that the Thatcher Government had used the police against the miners in a completely wrong way?

Mark Spencer: I am very much aware. I was there and I lived in those communities at that moment. I saw what was happening on the picket lines. There were friends of mine whose fathers were on the picket lines and whose brothers were on different sides of the argument, one in the National Union of Mineworkers and one in the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. Those scars are still there in my community and they are not helped by holding party political debates such as this one, instead of working together to try to improve those communities. I am saddened that this is more about trying to draw a groundswell of support for the Labour party at the ballot box than it is about genuinely solving the challenges we face, certainly in some of my communities in Nottinghamshire.
	I say “some”, because in towns such as Hucknall and Calverton, in the former coalfields in the bottom half of Sherwood, where there is access to employment and good transport links, the communities are bouncing forward. There is very low unemployment in some of those villages, but further north, in places such as Ollerton and Clipstone, where the communication and transport networks are not as good and where there is not the same access to work, the communities face challenges in trying to aspire their way out of it. I now have families in my constituency who are third- generation welfare-dependent. The aspiration has gone from some of those kids.
	We have to ask ourselves: what did the Blair Government do when they created the Coalfields Regeneration Trust? They spent far too much money on grassing down pit tips, planting trees and building women’s institute huts and scout huts, when they should have been putting in place infrastructure and transport networks and creating jobs. If someone does not have a job and their lad comes to them and says, “Dad, I want to go to scouts,” they cannot give him a tenner to go to scouts, because they cannot afford the money, even though there is a brand-new scout hut in their community. However, if they have a job and their lad comes to them and says, “Dad, my scout hut’s knackered. We’re trying to raise money for a new scout hut,” they will have a tenner to give towards that fund-raising event. That is where we went wrong in the period following the closure of those pits. We should have been putting money into infrastructure projects, apprenticeships and transport networks, to give people in those communities the opportunity to get out and get a job.
	I was fortunate to have the Minister in his previous role come to Sherwood to talk about apprenticeships and to look at some of the great work being done in and around my community and at how we are moving forward. The good news is that I held a jobs fair in Sherwood about six weeks ago. There were more jobs advertised in that room than there are unemployed people in my constituency. The bad news is that there is a skills gap. Some of those communities still lack the skills to take on those roles. The Government are working flat out to try to fill the skills gap by creating apprenticeships and jobs that the kids coming out of those schools can go into. That is the way to solve the coalfield communities’ deprivation: to give them the ability to aspire out of it, the ability to work their way, and the confidence that the Government of the day are looking after their ability to move from wherever they are to any point in the social scale.
	That is our mission; that is what we are trying to achieve. So what a tragedy it is that this debate is such a missed opportunity. We are going to spend three hours looking backwards, talking about flying pickets, Scargill and the good old pit days, when we should be talking about how we move forward—how we give jobs and aspiration to the next generation and how we work, whatever colour of Government, to try to solve the undoubted challenges faced in those former coalfields.
	I congratulate the Minister on working with me to assist at Thoresby colliery in any way we can, working with UK Coal and the unions to try to extend the life of the colliery, which will run out of coal in 2018 anyway. I would like to get the point where all the coal is extracted, but I am grateful for the support and the work done together. We need at some point to start thinking about the post Thoresby period, because it will run out of coal in 2018. We should be planning for that event now, working together to make sure that the next generation—because we have missed one—has that ability to aspire.

Ian Lavery: As a miner during the miners’ strike, I should perhaps declare an interest. Like my family, friends and colleagues in the coalfield communities and towns, I have a vested interest because we want to see justice and fairness after what happened all those years ago.
	As a young man at the time, I was fairly naive and I honestly believed that the Government of the day, regardless of political persuasions, would tell the truth from the Dispatch Box. What was revealed when the Cabinet papers were released earlier this year was quite the opposite. It is not that miners did not believe or understand at the time that they were being conned by MacGregor and by Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister of the day. We knew that was the case. We knew, but it was good to have it confirmed in 2014. The Cabinet papers revealed something quite sinister—a Government controlling the police, insisting that the police move in against miners, insisting that the Army should be involved against miners, the likes of myself and other honourable colleagues here who worked in the coal industry. My father, my brothers, my friends, were all miners attacked by the police, yet the Government know that we were right. At the same time, Thatcher was prepared to bring the Army in against ordinary, hard-working people. What an absolute disgrace.
	It was not really about economics. It was about an ideology and about destroying the coal mining industry and driving trade unionism off the face of Britain. That is what the dispute was all about. It was not an industrial dispute; it was a political dispute. As such, the miners who were arrested, incarcerated, fined or whatever should be given a complete amnesty. The whole fabric of the mining community was attacked; the heart of these communities was ripped out.
	In the little time left, I want to focus on one point. Thatcher lied from that Dispatch Box. Cabinet Ministers lied from that Dispatch Box. Senior Ministers lied from that Dispatch Box. Never mind harking back and saying that somebody has died; we have a right to seek justice after a Government acted covertly, behind our backs, and deliberately misled parliamentarians and the communities they represented. We are entitled to ask for an apology.
	We saw what happened in Orgreave, with the police deliberately attacking miners, but there were little Orgreaves all over the country. It was not happening only in South Yorkshire. We saw it in Ashington, where I lived; we saw it in Blythe; we saw it in Easington; we saw it all over the place where the police attacked ordinary hard-working people. Has anybody ever had someone spit in their face? I cannot say how bad it is. A policeman spat in my face, and I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am never getting over that. I never will. I could take the punches and I could take the truncheons—things that were widespread during the miners’ strike. Let us have a quick look at what happened. I am not after any apologies.

Peter Hain: Members of the Metropolitan police who had been bussed down to Neath waved £50 notes at striking miners. The Government should have the courage to apologise now for the dastardly practice of criminalising the miners.

Ian Lavery: I fully agree with that, but, speaking for myself, I will not accept any apologies. I prefer to see those on the Tory Benches, the Government of the day, as the enemy within: it was not the miners but the Tories who were the real enemy within. We have three pits left. Let us get off our backsides and ensure, as soon as we possibly can, that they continue to operate, funded by state aid. Let us keep those pits working.
	We need a full inquiry into the way in which the Government meddled. Their fingerprints were all over the operations of the police and the strategy of the National Coal Board during the miners’ strike. Let me say this as well. If the police had been taken to task during that dispute, we might, just might, not have seen what happened at Hillsborough, because the same police force had been at Orgeave, under the same control.
	We do not want any apologies. What we want is a full inquiry, so that those miners, who are now fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers, can sleep easy at night without being convicted. They should have been given medals for what they did in standing up for mining communities, instead of being criminalised.

David Mowat: I apologise to the House for the fact that at no point in my speech will I return to the events of the 1980s, which took place nearly 40 years ago in the historical past. Instead, I will talk about the future of the mining industry in this country and in the world. I will say this, however. Forty years ago, I went down a mine in Nottinghamshire. At the time, I was considering a career in mining engineering. It was a half day that I always remember. I would not have liked to make my life working down a mine, and I very much respect those who did. I entirely recognise—as, I am sure, do all Government Members—the contribution that the mining industry has made to the wealth of this country over the past 100 years and more, and I am very pleased about the money that has gone to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust.
	It has been implied today that the mining industry is dying globally—that it is on its last legs. Nothing could be further from the truth. The coalmining industry across the world grew by 3% last year in terms of tonnage. Only in the United Kingdom, which now accounts for 0.9% of the global coal industry, have we seen a contraction, and we have seen that contraction partly because of the policies of the coalition. In an intervention on the Minister’s opening speech, I mentioned the vote that took place on 4 December when many, although not all, Labour Members—I have checked the names—voted in favour of extending the emissions performance directive to existing coal-fired power stations, which would have accelerated the closure of those stations. Such a unilateral move would have nothing to do with carbon reduction, and would have a massive impact on our existing coal-fired stations.
	I shall say more about that later. First, let me return to the subject of the world industry, which, as I said earlier, has grown by 3%. China produces 50% of the world’s coal. Last year it increased its coal production by eight times more, in absolute terms, than it increased the production of renewables, and its level of carbon emissions per head was the same as that of the United Kingdom. Moreover, every country in the European Union increased its coal production last year except for the UK: not just Poland—although we rely on it heavily—but Austria and Germany, which has built 12 GW of unabated coal over the past few years. Austria is a good example of a carbon junkie country. It is suing us because we are going ahead with Hinkley Point C.

Tom Blenkinsop: I was not going to intervene, but, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the steel and metal related industry, I shall do so. The hon. Gentleman knows that this Government unilaterally introduced the carbon price floor, which constitutes a higher tax than has been imposed by any of our competitors in the European Union. That is one of the main reasons for the contraction of the industry, and also a big reason for the fact that energy-intensive industries in general have contracted in the UK.

David Mowat: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and he knows that I more than partially agree with him about the carbon price floor and the impact on energy-intensive industries, but is it right to pretend that the vote that took place on 4 December did not matter? The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) did vote with Baroness Worthington and all of those people for the accelerated closure. That is what happened and I think it was a key moment in the history of the Labour movement that that vote took place with apparently so little concern.
	The hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) mentioned the carbon price floor and that is part of it, as is the subsidy regime that we have put in place. The closure of coal stations is being driven by the large combustible directive and we are pursuing that, but it is worth saying that we are increasingly acting unilaterally in this regard. We should remember that we are the only country in the EU that is cutting the amount of coal we use. That is an extraordinary statistic and people should reflect on that, particularly those on the Labour Front Bench.
	On 4 December there was a Labour three-line Whip for a vote on Lords amendment 105. That amendment said that the emissions performance standard—which means that new coal must, effectively, have carbon capture and storage—was to be applied to existing coal stations. That is what Opposition Members were whipped through the Lobby to support, and I think it is incredible. Apart from the effect on fuel poverty, we have seen the effect on Tata Steel and we are seeing the effect on the coal industry. The coal industry around the world is prospering. I shall say it again: no form of energy increased in absolute terms as much as the coal industry did.

Mark Spencer: I just wonder if my hon. Friend recognises the challenge. At Thoresby colliery it is 8 km from the pithead to the pit face, and it is 1 km down. How does it compete in a global market to get that coal from the face to the surface, when in China and the States they can just bulldoze it out of the ground in open-cast sites?

David Mowat: I am not an expert on the economics of the coal industry, but I would just say it is pretty heavy stuff and having to transport it an awfully long way has got an economic impact. I am not suggesting that the entire coal station fleet in the UK has to be sourced by UK Coal; it will come from abroad as well. I do say, however, that by turning our back on coal more quickly than any other country in Europe or the world, we are saying something about our intentions. We are taking important decisions for the future.
	I know that many hon. Members, particularly those who represent constituencies in the coalfields, agree at least in part with a lot of what I am saying. I really believe that there is more than one Labour party in this regard. There is the Primrose Hill branch which has forced this stuff through—the three-line Whip, the vote on Lords amendment 105. I believe, however, that many Opposition Members—particularly those sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, whom I respect greatly—do not really agree with some of that stuff, and some of them at least did not vote for it, whether by accident or design. Nevertheless—[Interruption.] Yes, indeed: clearly by design. Nevertheless, that is what happened and what we are talking about here is an issue in the Labour party. It needs to decide whether or not it wishes to support our coalfields in the same way that other parties across Europe support their own coalfields, or does it wish to just give in to the Primrose Hill section of the party?

Pat Glass: I am very pleased to speak in this historic debate on justice for the coalfields campaign. It is clear from the Minister’s remarks that he simply does not understand that the scars from 1984-85 are still there and will not heal until all this is properly exposed. It is hard to fully measure the impact of Government actions on communities like mine in the 1980s and the years following. Those of us who lived through them were under no illusion at the time about the way in which the Government misled the public, vilified our people and attempted to politicise the police. It is good that a light is now being shone on this.
	I am not attacking the police. I have been married to the constabulary for 30 years, but that does not mean that I am under any illusions about what the Thatcher Government did to try to politicise the police in this country in 1984.
	My mother ran a miners support group in 1984. It was the forerunner of today’s Tory food banks. We supported 24 families throughout the strike. The miners we supported were good, honest, decent people who did not deserve what happened to them and their communities. They certainly did not deserve to be labelled the “enemy within” by the Prime Minister and other Ministers of the day. They were standing up for their communities, for their industry and for the dignity of the work that the Tory Government were taking away from them.
	I support the call for an apology from Conservative Ministers for the secret pit closure plan and for even considering the deployment of the Army against the people of this country. I cannot actually believe that I am saying that the Government were considering deploying the Army against people who were doing nothing more than standing up for their communities.
	I was elected to the House in 2010, and I have sat through a number of debates in the House in which I could not believe what I was hearing. I could not believe the way in which the Government behaved in relation to the Hillsborough tragedy, for example. I also could not believe what I was hearing as I sat through the Prime Minister’s statement on the death of Pat Finucane, a shameful episode that amounted to nothing less than state-sponsored murder. Now we are considering the Government’s behaviour in the period leading up to, and during, the miners’ strike.
	We need to know exactly what went on between the Prime Minister’s office, MacGregor and the police in relation not only to Orgreave but to the hundreds of other state-sponsored illegal actions by the Government. I remember when my parents and my aunt and uncle set off from the north-east to travel to a brother’s funeral in Scunthorpe. They were turned back on the A1 by the police for no reason other than that my father was a trade unionist. They were dressed for a funeral, not for the picket line. As far as I am aware, my parents have never committed a crime. They have never been arrested and they do not have a criminal record, yet their movements were restricted because my father was a trade unionist. He was not even in the NUM.

Andrew Bridgen: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Pat Glass: I will not give way.
	This happened not in Pinochet’s Chile or in South Africa during the apartheid regime; this happened in the 1980s in Thatcher’s Britain.

Lisa Nandy: My hon. Friend is making a compelling case and I am very pleased that she has paid tribute to the role of women in the miners’ strike and talked about the solidarity and the shining example that they set. Does she agree that it is still the women in coalfields such as ours who feel most angry that this Government are refusing not only to apologise but to put in the public domain all the information pertaining to that time that would allow us to get justice for the coalfield communities?

Pat Glass: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It was the women—the wives and daughters of the miners, as well as women in trade unionist families—who were quite simply doing the right thing in their communities. And yes, those women are extremely angry that these issues have not been opened up to proper public scrutiny.
	I support the call for Ministers to set out all the details of the interactions between the Government and the police at the time of the strike, and to release all the information about Government-police communications relating to Orgreave and all the other incidents that we have heard about today. I also support the call for Ministers swiftly to initiate an independent review of what happened at Orgreave and elsewhere if the Independent Police Complaints Commission cannot or will not undertake a proper investigation of these matters.

David Davies: The hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) referred to miners as an honest, decent, hard-working group of people, and on that point she was absolutely right. Like most other Members who have spoken in the debate, I have a direct connection with this subject. I was the first person for generations on my mother’s side of the family who was not raised in a pit village. Except for one or two men who joined the Army, I was probably the first male in the family who was not a miner. Virtually all of them were.
	I am happy to speak here for those miners who wanted to work during the strike, as many of my relatives did. Disgracefully, a lot of myths have been perpetuated today. It is interesting that not one Labour Member has
	mentioned Arthur Scargill. The tragedy for the miners was that they were disgracefully badly led by one man who felt that he had the right to run the country. He tried to bring down the Government in 1974 and tried again for a strike in the 1980s. He balloted his members three times and lost, then brought them out on strike anyway. He was absolutely hated by many miners, as well as by many in the Labour movement. It is an open secret that the leader of the Labour party at the time, Neil Kinnock, hated Arthur Scargill. Many people in the Labour movement hated him, and the reality is that he hated them. Labour Members are all trying to line themselves up as friends of the miners now, but the reality is that Arthur Scargill would have despised the new Labour party that sits in the Chamber today as much as he hated the Tories.

Andrew Bridgen: My hon. Friend rightly gives the other perspective to this sad story of our country’s history: that of the areas where the miners wanted to work and the intimidation they faced, which split our communities in half. The Labour party has always supported the right to work, but what about the right to work at that time of miners who wanted to go down the pit and did not want to join the strike? How about respecting that?

David Davies: My hon. Friend makes an important point, because one third of the miners continued to work throughout that strike and many more would have done so had they been able to. Of course it was not just the mining union and the miners themselves who were split on this; the whole trade union movement was split on it. The steelworkers did not particularly want the strike to go ahead and the shipworkers’ unions were not in favour of it; they were all happy to turn a blind eye to coal that was still being pulled out of the ground, and they knew that they had to, because if the steel furnaces had been allowed to run down, it would not just have been miners who lost their jobs but thousands of steelworkers. But none of that was important to Arthur Scargill; he was more than happy to risk the jobs of thousands of other working people, as well as those of the miners, to try to impose his will on a democratically elected Government who had just won a very large majority.
	The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), along with many others, criticised the police and asked whether we had ever had someone spit in our face. I have had someone spit in my face, and I have also been in violent situations as a serving police officer. I know that emotions can run high and that there can be inappropriate behaviour when people are suffering extreme provocation. All those thousands of people who turned up at the Orgreave cokeworks—and had been badly led—had been taken there to stop people working, in order to prevent coke from being delivered to the steelworks. Had they succeeded, they would have destroyed thousands of jobs.

Ian Lavery: I advise the hon. Gentleman not to cite something that I did not say. In certain circumstances, a police officer spat in my face when I was on the ground being restrained. The hon. Gentleman suggests that someone has spat in his face, but has a police officer ever spat in his face?

David Davies: Obviously, a police officer has never spat in my face. I am saying to the hon. Gentleman that there are occasions when police officers may behave badly, having suffered extreme provocation. There is one thing that it is very important to say: police officers do not go looking for trouble, looking for fights and looking to inflict violence; they want to go home every night. Frankly, they want a quiet life and they do not go around looking for trouble.

Ian Lavery: rose—

David Davies: I am willing to give way one more time because I respect the fact that at least this Labour Member knows something about the working classes, which is more than I can say for a lot of them.

Ian Lavery: Thanks again. I have to say, however, that a brother of mine is a police inspector, and there is a huge difference between the police force today and the one we experienced during the miners’ strike and then during the Hillsborough fiasco. By goodness, it is a good job, too.

David Davies: There are differences in respect of the police, the NUM, the Labour party and the Conservative party, but one thing is for certain: that was a political strike and it was not brought about by the then Government. They did not want a strike like that. The NUM, led by Arthur Scargill, had decided that it wanted to bring down the Government—that is an absolute fact—and he failed three times to persuade the miners to go with him so he took them out anyway, against their wishes.
	I have two and a half minutes left, so let us talk about today, because we now have a different situation and a very different NUM. Its representatives came to give evidence to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs and they were not singing the praises of Arthur Scargill. I believe the union has some sort of legal dispute with him at the moment. He hastened the end of an industry by making it clear to the Government that they would not be able to rely on coal to generate electricity, so it is not in the least bit surprising that they went ahead with the dash for gas and for nuclear—that was the only way they could be certain of keeping the lights on. It is a great shame that he hastened the end of the industry. Of course, some pits would have shut down, because some of them simply did not have any coal left, but a good leader of the miners at that time would have got public support by demanding better redundancy measures and better measures to help the coalfield communities get through what was going to be a very difficult time. Instead, he led them all out on a strike they did not want and did not support, and lost all public opinion. The resulting catastrophe for many miners is something we can lay entirely at his door and, interestingly, not one person here is wiling to defend him.

Alan Meale: I should like to point out that Arthur Scargill never closed a single pit. This debate is about whether there should be an inquiry. The fact of the matter is that 11,800 people were arrested, 5,000 of whom were taken to court. Hundreds of them went to jail, some quite wrongly, including some of my constituents in Mansfield. The call is simple: we need a full inquiry.

David Davies: I was generous in giving way, and it is a pity that it was abused. The reality is that I am more on the hon. Gentleman’s side than he realises. I do not buy into this nonsense about global warming. I do not believe that carbon is creating a runaway problem we cannot cope with, and I wish that I had more time to go into why not. There is a place for coal in generating electricity. There is an NUM now that is much more moderate than it used to be. I fully support anyone who comes forward with a package that will allow us to use coal—British coal—to generate electricity. I urge Members from all parts of the House to think very carefully about any measures now—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I call Dennis Skinner.

Dennis Skinner: I do not think that I am from the Primrose Hill set. I still have a Parkray that burns coal, but, if it is any consolation, I have a hybrid car to cover my tracks. That sets the scene. This is about closure—that is what we want. We want closure. Indeed, the Tories all say they want closure; everybody does. That is what we are after; all we want is closure of this period of our lives. We all know the facts: 1972 and 1974 were victories for the NUM, and no one has yet mentioned that. They were significant because they happened under Ted Heath, and Thatcher was his successor.
	When my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Mr Hood) talks about being lured on to the punch at Cortonwood and the other four receiving pits, it was deliberate. By the way, the miners’ union is a federation. Nearly every member of the federation had had a ballot. There had been a ballot in Scotland with a 78% majority. The figure was similar in Durham, Yorkshire and south Wales. When we add it all up and include Nottinghamshire, it was a big majority, but nobody talks about that. So we need closure on this problem. Let us remember that it was a very honourable dispute; it was not about money, mammon and greed. It is true that in 1972 and 1974, I would have joined any demonstration or any strike whether or not it was about money. I did join strikes in those years, and they were relatively short. As we all know, one of them resulted in a victory for Labour against Ted Heath. Therefore, the Tory party—I do not see why it is hiding its light under a bushel—was determined to get revenge. I could see it in their eyes in here.
	I have lived long enough—I did not know whether I would—to see that what my hon. Friends and I said during that strike was right. I said 75 pits would be closed. The Tories were trying to say that only 20 would be. When they closed Cortonwood, it was in the top 75, not the top 20. So it was evident that we were right. In many industrial disputes, a striker does not manage to live long enough to realise they were right. I think I am nearly right now about the EU, but I will not go into that because it is another matter.
	What I am saying is that we are after closure on what was an important industrial dispute. It was an honourable strike, and I do not see it in the way that the Tories portray it. It is true that policemen stopped me from walking in my constituency at Shirebrook where the police were gathered in strength. I had to walk on a
	constituent’s wall to get around. Yes, I went through all that, and I have been in jail and all the rest of it—not on that strike, but another one.
	Anyway, many months ago, I asked the Speaker for closure. I thought he was so clever—he has a bigger vocabulary than any of us—he would be able to find a way to get the Government to admit that we needed closure. Why? Because it was not one Minister lying for 10 minutes or 10 seconds in the House. This was about a long lie that lasted for 12 months. So how many Ministers did lie?

Conor Burns: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman another minute. He referred to the miners’ strikes of the 1970s and the determination of the NUM then to bring down Ted Heath’s Government. Does he agree that Arthur Scargill’s objective in the 1980s was to break the Thatcher Government, something the Labour movement could not manage at the ballot box?

Dennis Skinner: The truth is that, if the deputies, who had a 70% ballot, including in Nottinghamshire, had used that ballot, we would have won. If there had been a second front of the dockers that lasted not for a week but for a month, we would have won. If Mrs Thatcher had not got the oil from Gaddafi—yes, Gaddafi. She begged Gaddafi to sell her more oil. Just think about it. That combination in the tent. God almighty. If that had not happened, we would have won. So we had many opportunities. Do not think it was a runaway victory. We fought as well as we could, but we were battling against not only the police. All the higher echelons of state were ranged against us. It has never happened before, apart from during the 1926 strike. That was an honourable year. Men at 60 were prepared to sacrifice the roof over their own head for a 16-year-old lad in a coalfield they did not even know existed. That was honour, and I am proud to have fought every single day. I would love to do it again.

Marcus Jones: I am not sure whether I can match the passion of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), but I will pay tribute to him as a man of principle who sticks to those principles, unlike those on his Front Bench. I am extremely disappointed tonight in the tone of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. As someone who represents a constituency that used to depend very much on coal mining, there is much in the motion that I can agree with about the legacy of the coal industry. But what has disappointed me most today, and will have disappointed many of my constituents, is that the debate has all been predicated on the events of 30 years ago, trying to wind the clock back to then. Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen should reflect on their 13 years in government, on the fact that there were some people on their Benches looking for this type of closure, but on three occasions, between 2007 and 2009, the Labour Government refused to provide information under the Freedom on Information Act 2000. So Opposition Front Benchers have a lot to answer for to their Back-Bench Members.
	I want to move on to what is happening now. I was also very disappointed that Labour Front Benchers did not mention the problems faced by my constituents and the sad closure of Daw Mill colliery. I know that some
	Labour Members were also saddened to hear about what happened. We did not hear one word from Labour Front Benchers about the men who lost their jobs at Daw Mill. We did not hear one mention of the people who lost their jobs in the supply chain, the people who have had their pensions reduced, the people who lost their concessionary coal allowance, which was later reinstated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and the people who lost much of the redundancy payments that they were expecting and had to rely on statutory redundancy.
	That was highlighted in a letter to one of my local papers, the Nuneaton News, from a Union of Democratic Mineworkers official. He strongly criticised the lack of action from local Labour councillors at the time of the Daw Mill closure, but he also strongly criticised the Leader of the Opposition, because the UDM wrote to him at the time, when it was desperate for help, and he did not even have the courtesy to reply. I think that that, along with the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), really shows the support that the Leader of the Opposition is willing to give the coal industry and the people who worked in it. It is not the same as the real commitment to those people shown by some Labour Members who have spoken today.
	The motion also mentions the health legacy of the coal industry, such as respiratory illnesses, and that is important. I congratulate the Labour Government on the work they did to get some compensation for miners, but they also have a legacy to answer for themselves, because in my constituency, and others like it, where there are many such legacy issues, the health funding was one of the lowest per head of population in the whole country. That is not looking after people who worked in the mining industry or who are living with the legacy of it.
	I am glad that this Government have started to address the inequality in health funding. Progress on that has not been as quick as I would like it to be, and I hope that those on the Front Bench will pass those comments on to the Secretary of State for Health, but we are starting to make inroads in an area that was completely ignored by the Labour Government.
	We are recovering from the legacy of the coal industry in my constituency. Many of the people who lost their jobs at Daw Mill have secured new jobs, although I acknowledge that many of them are not as well paid—it is important that we all understand that. Unemployment has come down by 40% over the past 12 months. We need to make opportunities in those areas, and only by creating the atmosphere in which business can thrive will that happen. This Government are certainly doing that. We are not harking back to the past 30 years. To do so would not be wise, because that will not help anybody.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. The time limit at the moment is set at five minutes, although it could be revised downwards. Only Opposition Members now wish to speak, so with what I will describe as comradely co-operation, more comrades will have a chance to contribute. You do not have to speak for five minutes, so do not feel obliged to do so.

Wayne David: I am happy to contribute to a comradely discussion, Mr Speaker.
	South Wales has a long and proud history of coal mining. It reached its peak just before the first world war, when the industry employed nearly a quarter of a million men. After the first world war, it began a slow but steady decline until its demise today. It went from the 1926 miners’ strike, that summer of soups and speeches, as the Rhymney valley poet Idris Davies wrote, to the struggles of the 1930s and the closures of the 1960s and ’70s, although it has to be said that attempts were made by Labour Governments at that time to find an alternative source of employment in the area.
	Then, of course, we saw the miners’ strike of ’84 and ’85. I remember the strike, when I was a young man—a very young man—because I was involved in my local miners support group. We met in the local Conservative club, which nobody thought was strange because the whole community supported the miners in my village. We were absolutely clear that the fight was about defending jobs and communities. We were under no misapprehension at that time—it has been proven since: as far as the Conservative Government of the day were concerned, it was a political strike. They were out to break the trade union movement, and the vanguard of the movement was the National Union of Mineworkers. Let us make no mistake about it, because that was proven beyond doubt. After the strike was over—yes, the miners were defeated—the full vengeance of the Government was displayed in the number of pit closures that occurred.
	The Government said that they acted on economic grounds, but that lie was shown up very clearly in the case of Tower colliery in Cynon Valley. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) led the miners of the colliery in a sit-down protest. Eventually, although the Government wanted to close it, a miners’ co-operative was formed and it maintained its profitability for 13 years after the strike. That showed, above all, that the Conservative Government were concerned not about the economics of the coal industry but about the politics of this country. That is why it was correct to have that dispute, even though the miners lost. I am proud to say that the south Wales miners remained largely united and, with dignity, led the other miners back to work.
	During that whole period of adversity and decline, one of the hallmarks of communities in south Wales was the amazing sense of community solidarity that existed then, which I believe still exists today. That was shown clearly in 1926 and in the 1930s, but it was shown very recently as well. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) said, last year, in the village of Senghenydd in my constituency, we had an enormously successful community initiative to raise money to build a national mining memorial. That was important in itself, but also because it showed the community coming together to pay tribute to past sacrifices and say, “We are united today and we are looking forward to the future.”
	We still face huge problems in south Wales, which are partly a legacy of what happened with the Tories and the coal industry. We are still seeing acute levels of unemployment, poverty and low pay, with economic inactivity continuing. In the aftermath of ’84 and ’85, the Conservatives deliberately encouraged miners to go
	“on the sick” so that they did not show up in the unemployment figures. We are still living with that deliberate act of Government policy.
	Today it is high time that, once again, we all join in a comradely way to make sure that the needs of the south Wales coalfield are addressed. I hope—indeed, I am confident—that when we see a Labour Government elected in a few months’ time, they will work in partnership with the Labour-led Assembly to make sure that we have, once again, dynamic policies for the south Wales valleys that will bring prosperity to the people we represent.

David Hamilton: I hope to take all five minutes for my speech, Mr Speaker. I apologise for that, but though I rarely speak in the Chamber, it would be remiss of me not to speak on this subject.
	I am going to put a different spin, if that is agreeable, on what has been said already. I started in the pit when I was 15 and was going down the pit at 16. I will not go over all the history, but I worked in the pit for 20 years. In Scotland, we were out on strike along with the rest of the coalfields. Major decisions were made. The judges in Scotland ruled that the strike was legal there. Scotland was the only area that had a ruling on that basis.
	I would like to talk about the role that everybody played throughout that period and the strength we gathered from it. Women did not just stand behind us—by the end of the strike they were standing in front of us, usually trying to protect us because most of us had been arrested umpteen times on the picket line. Great things happened as a result. Women ended up at the forefront: they became councillors, politicians and trade unionists. Some even became MPs.
	We talk about the victimisation and hardships of people who want to go to work, but let me tell you about the people who worked all their days in the pits and the sacrifices that were made. I have to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) on one point: I never agreed with a ballot then, and I never agree with a ballot now. That is because an older man who had been in the pit for 40-odd years would rightly want to take a redundancy payment, but the younger men were entitled to a future. If there had been a ballot, older men would be voting for younger men to lose out. We therefore had a show of hands, and we had solidarity—there was a lot of solidarity. A lot of older people in the collieries made sacrifices on behalf of the young.
	There were sacrifices in my area of the Lothians: 46 men from one pit ended that strike sacked, 36 men were sacked from the pit up the road, and five were sacked from another. Let me tell you about victimisation: of the four branch officials at Monktonhall, three were sacked, and of the 12 committee members, eight were sacked, to make sure that when we went back to work we would toe the line. We should remember that before the strike started union officials up and down the country were told, “There’s your agreement.” Previous agreements were torn up and they were told, “You’re starting three shifts next week.” We were pounded for a year before the strike started, but it goes back further than that.
	In 1979, that fateful year, 11 Scottish National party Members joined the Tories, brought down a Labour Government and gave us 18 years of the Tories, but has everyone forgotten the Ridley report? It recommended taking out the union movement because we would get a majority here. The trade unions had 12 million members in those days. The report identified two unions in particular: the dockers and the miners. Unfortunately, it fell to us—I wish it hadnae, but it did.
	The bottom line is that we have to learn from the past to determine what will happen in the future.

Cathy Jamieson: My hon. Friend is making a passionate and powerful case. Does he agree that there also needs to be an inquiry into the convictions in Scotland during the miners strike, and is he surprised that the Scottish Government have not agreed to such an inquiry?

David Hamilton: I am not surprised. The SNP were tartan Tories in the past and they are making a similar alliance now. The Government have not agreed an inquiry, but they should.

Thomas Docherty: My hon. Friend will know that today is the 75th anniversary of the Valleyfield pit disaster, when 35 men went to work but did not come home to their wives, mothers and families. Does he agree that we owe them and their families a legacy, to make sure there is a stronger future for all our communities?

David Hamilton: I accept and agree with everything that has been said. I was present at the Auchengeich disaster memorial, which reminds us of the price of coal. It is really important that we get that in perspective.
	I worked in a colliery for 20 years and was there during the miners strike. Although this is my story, it reflects what happened right through the coalfield. I spent from October to December 1984 in Saughton prison. I was accused of assaulting a man who had been my friend for many, many years. I had a two-day trial by jury in Scotland, after which the jury took 20 minutes to decide that it was a stitch-up. It took them 10 minutes to elect the chairman of the jury, so it only took them 10 minutes to determine that it was a stitch-up. That is what was happening the length and breadth of the country. I only say that because many, many miners went to jail and were found innocent, but they never got to go back to work.
	Remember that the deal was clear: intimidate the work force, and the best way to do that is by intimidating the union and taking out union officials. I do not want to go on about the history, but it is important that we learn from history in order to deal with how we go about the future.
	The more things change, the more they stay the same. That is an old saying, but it is true. On victimisation, 206 men were sacked in Scotland and 1,000 men were sacked throughout the UK. Some got back, but it cost them dearly, not just in employment, but in health and everything else.

Jim McGovern: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Hamilton: I havnae got time. Victimisation happens right now. Just look at Grangemouth. They sacked the senior shop steward there—this is 30 years on, by the way—and told the rest of the work force, “You’ll do as you’re told or you’ll end up the same as him.”
	On blacklisting, just talk to the construction industry. When blacklisting took place, it took me two and a half years to get a job. That was before I came here, before I became a councillor and before I started a company. I was sick of going for jobs and being told, “Yes, you’ll start on Monday,” only to then get a letter saying otherwise because they had checked their computers—remember the McWhirter twins?—and found that my name was blacklisted along with those of hundreds and thousands of other people. That is happening in this day and age.
	Then there is phone hacking. Everybody sympathises with the Dowlers, but let me say—it was called phone tapping in my day—that the police throughout the country used to tap the phones at all the strike centres. I remember an occasion when there was a message to go to picket a place, and 450 police turned up. I sent messages out along the lines, saying, “No, we’re going to occupy their headquarters,” and that is what we did the following day.
	I want to end on a serious note. We are talking about history, but we are also talking about the future. We have got to learn the lessons of the past. In the 21st century, do we want to live in a society that has all the hallmarks of being the worst place in the world in the 20th century? If this is the 21st century, let us be human beings about this.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the limit will have to be cut to four minutes after the speech we are about to hear.

David Anderson: To help, Mr Speaker, I will not take interventions.
	I was amazed by the lack of seriousness among Government Front Benchers when they thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) was talking about Jimmy Savile. He was talking about Lord Saville’s report on Bloody Sunday and the Hillsborough report. This issue has exactly the same stature: things went on in the name of the state and, whatever our views about what happened in the past, we as representatives of the state today have a responsibility to the future to release the papers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) said.
	This debate is opportune because there have been reports in the papers over the past few days about the state of energy supplies in this country. A recent report in a newspaper called The Register stated:
	“The capacity crunch has been predicted for about seven years… Everyone seems to have seen this coming—except the people in charge.”
	We saw a lot of it coming 30 years ago, but nobody listened to us. What do we have now? We have a situation in which, as we are told in the same report:
	“The UK government will set out Second World War-style measures to keep the lights on and avert power cuts”.
	What a farce. One of the worst things about it is that one way the Government will do so is by continuing every year to import 50 million tonnes of coal that has blood on it—the blood of Chinese miners, of Russian miners and, as we saw earlier this year, of the 300 Turkish miners who died.
	The hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) was absolutely right to say that we should have had a much more pro-coal attitude in this country. The problem is that they shut the coal mines when we were the leading proponents of clean coal technology in this country. The film “Brassed Off” was mentioned earlier. It was set around Grimethorpe colliery, where we were making oil out of coal 25 years ago, but it was closed on a whim and at a stroke of a Minister’s pen.
	I want to ask Ministers four specific questions. They are about going forward, not about the past, and about how we should address this issue today. First and foremost, will they give a commitment to release all the papers identified from the 1980s? Without that, we are wasting our time.
	Secondly, will Ministers give the Coalfields Regeneration Trust the real support it needs? People passionately support the CRT—including the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), whom I respect massively—but the truth is that it has been cut, cut and cut again, and it has been told that it must become supported by grants because it will not be getting any public money. We need such public money to rescue these communities.
	Thirdly, will Ministers accept the details of the report produced by Sheffield Hallam university, and will they work with it and the all-party group on coalfield communities to try to address the problems that there are in every coalfield across this country?
	Fourthly, the Minister for Business and Enterprise mentioned the support for Kellingley and Thoresby collieries several times, but will Ministers confirm for the record and admit that the money—it is a loan, because UK Coal has to pay it back—was only lent to the two collieries if they agreed to be shut down within 18 months and not, as was said earlier, have their life extended to 2018? It is a fact that that was the only ground on which the money was loaned.
	There is no doubt that we are where we are because of a deliberate policy. Through the 1980s, there was an attempt to cut back: between 1985 and 1991, some 120 pits closed. I have to be honest about the fact that many of them were well past their sell-by date. I worked at one of them: it had been going since 1825 and was on its last legs. In 1992, on the back of the election, Michael Heseltine came up with a hit list of 31 top-quality mines that could still have been producing coal for this country. By the way, there was not a word about that in the manifesto—not one word. At the time, they said Arthur Scargill was lying, but they proved that he was not, because those 31 pits were shut within weeks.
	As well as the pits being closed, the manufacturing industry in parts of the world like mine was decimated. Companies such as Huwood, Anderson Boyes, Gullick Dobson and Dowty, which had been leading the world, went to the wall. I have a friend who still works in coalfield engineering. In 1984, he worked in Motherwell. In the 1990s, he worked in Ilkeston in Derbyshire. He now travels every week from Leeds Bradford international airport to Dortmund because we no longer have that
	industry in this country, when we used to lead the world in it. Hundreds of small and medium-sized businesses closed, including shops, and communities were decimated. The truth is that we have left no future for our kids.
	I say to the Minister today: please give us justice, give us some relief, give us the truth.

Mr Speaker: A four-minute limit now applies.

Nick Smith: A few weeks ago, my borough of Blaenau Gwent had the privilege of screening the Welsh premier of “Still the Enemy Within” in our historic and award-winning Market Hall cinema. That moving documentary about the ’84 strike captured the most important trade union dispute of our lives. It reminded me of the worry that I felt for my family—the knot that I had in my stomach for that whole year, when nearly all my uncles and cousins were colliers on strike. It took me back to the time when the community was united in standing by our lads. It also reminded me of Tory Minister Nick Ridley’s insidious plan to take on the miners—the miners whose side I would always be on and for whom I would always work.
	Blaenau Gwent was built on the two pillars of coal and steel. The community and the culture were as strong as those pillars. There was not a lot of money in anyone’s pocket. I remember picking coal off the mountains as a small boy to heat our home during one strike. Families knew the toll that the heavy industries took—a terrible legacy that is shown these days in our poor health record. Despite all that, we had strong roots to rely on and high hopes for the next generation.
	In the 30 years since, Blaenau Gwent has had a fight on its hands to get back on its feet. The two pillars are long gone and not enough private sector industry has filled the gap. Blaenau Gwent is slowly pulling itself up by its bootstraps, but we need a new deal to get us properly back on our feet. We have received good support from the Welsh Government and Europe for towns such as Ebbw Vale, which has a new school complex, a new hospital and much more on the site where the steelworks once stood. We now need support that not only strengthens our public services, but gives us a chance to thrive once more.
	Blaenau Gwent is not alone. Our neighbouring valley boroughs need support too, and we need a valleys agenda to help us move forward. That is why I will continue to campaign for infrastructure improvements, such as the electrification of the valleys rail network and a new metro system. That would help to improve the access that valley people have to the bigger jobs market on the coast.
	We need first-rate guidance for young people to dramatically improve their social mobility and access to the professions, so that they can get well-paid work and do not get trapped in low-skilled, low-paid jobs. We need a range of employers to be given every incentive to make coalfield communities such as Blaenau Gwent their home. Half measures are not enough. We have a strong responsibility to give every young person in Blaenau Gwent the chance to succeed. They do not have to pick coal off the mountain during strikes like we did, but they have their own difficulties in getting a good start in life.
	The people in the south Wales valleys towns deserve the best possible support and a new deal for a better future. Only a Labour Government can see that job through.

John Mann: I have a series of questions for the Minister.
	In 2001, I was elected in a constituency that was awash with heroin, death from heroin and families plagued by heroin. We have beaten that back. Under the last Labour Government, crime was reduced by 400%. We now have a 30% cut in policing. Will the Government reverse the cut in front-line policing that I am seeing in my community? Will they get the police back on the beat in our communities, which we have lost under this Government?
	Secondly, we are forced by the Government’s inspectorate to have housing where we do not want it and where the community rejects it, despite their so-called localism. There is a proposal from the council for 750 houses to be built on the Harworth colliery site with housing zone status. That is about to be determined by the Government. Will the Minister announce that we are going to get that, so that we can build housing there and move forward in that community?
	Under the last Labour Government there was huge investment that led, for example, to Laing O’Rourke and the Steetley brickwork sites, creating 500 jobs. It led to the Manta Wood site with thousands of jobs, including at B&Q, Keltruck, and many others. We now want a brand new employment zone along the A1 down from the former Harworth colliery, and to create thousands of jobs, looking into the future, five, 10, and 15 years ahead, as well as tomorrow. Will the Government give us support and assistance in getting that?
	Under the last Labour Government we got rid of the roundabouts on the A1—every single one went, which meant a 10-minute saving per journey for every company. That is huge amounts of money and jobs for major distribution companies. The Elkesley bridge, announced in 2009 by a Labour Government, is only just being built now because it was delayed by this Government. With high-speed rail coming in, will the Government commit to giving us the bypass and dual carriageway that we need to connect my community with new high-speed rail, and a rail link that is direct and immediate so that when it comes we can link to it?
	The Coalfields Regeneration Trust has done tremendous work, as has the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation. Under the previous Government we got £1.5 million for Manton miners welfare, which is the most successful football project for kids anywhere in this country, with the participation of other sites that CISWO owns—there are many more across the country. Will the Government put the money in to allow those sites to be properly regenerated and developed for sport in this country, because they are sat there waiting for it?
	We have the biggest investment in new secondary schools per pupil anywhere in Britain, and in Bassetlaw, seven out of eight schools are newly built. However, we are still waiting for the one at Selby Park, which was meant to be built last. It was to be started in 2010, so will the Government announce after the five-year delay that Selby Park secondary school will be rebuilt like all the others in the middle of a former mining community that needs it?
	Under this Government we have had to fight off privatisation and the closure of fire stations and ambulance stations. We want a guarantee that the NHS will not be privatised and that our 999 services will still be there. Finally, we must look to the future. The 400th anniversary of the pilgrim fathers is coming up, and there is Sherwood forest, which should be a new national park. There are new kinds of industry, so will the Government help us to develop them into the future?

Kevin Barron: I will be as brief as possible. First, the “State of the coalfields” report published in June highlights major issues in coal mining communities, not just the closure programmes, but problems that have been there for decade upon decade and particularly concern jobs and ill health. It is all to do with income. Although the Government were right to say that unemployment is decreasing in mining communities, pro rata it is not decreasing half as much as it has done in the healthier south-east of this economy. That issue must be addressed and is highlighted well in that report.
	The first intervention made by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) was about who closed the coal mines in the last century, but it is a nonsense argument to say that Labour closed more mines between 1964 and 1974. The real question concerns who closed the coal mines, and when they closed, how much coal was imported into this country to replace it? Never under the Wilson Government did we bring coal into this country to replace coal lost as a result of the closure programme, which is what we had to do under the Thatcher Government. I came to the House in 1983, and I remember the coal miners’ strike—I have Orgreave in my constituency. I had left the coal industry fewer than 12 months before to come to this place, and I remember what happened.
	I want to say two things. One concerns policing, and there are a lot of lessons to be learned from that. A national reporting centre was set up during the miners’ strike. Pro formas were handed out for police to charge people using effectively the same language. My constituency backed on to Nottinghamshire. People were prevented from leaving Yorkshire to go to Nottinghamshire, miles away from where there may have been a breach of the law. That was always going to be challenged, and it should have been challenged because the policing of the strike was wrong. In May 1984 the Police Federation condemned the use of pro forma charge sheets against miners.
	Do not get me wrong: I and others in this Chamber criticised the police and the stone throwers. On several occasions I called for a public inquiry into the policing of the miners’ strike and I still believe we should have one now, because this should never happen again in our communities.
	I hope we have learned from what happened at that time, which was revenge for 1974. I was a striking miner at that time and remember it well. I joined the Labour party in the February of that year.
	The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) talked about regeneration and the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which is regenerating communities by giving
	grants to individual groups—a wonderful thing to do. The economic regeneration, like the advanced manufacturing plant that has been mentioned, began under the last Government through the regional development agency, which was abolished when this Government took office, and through objective 1 funding, because we were that poor that at the time we received European money. We should not forget that Europe did a lot to turn South Yorkshire round, although, as the report published in June this year showed, there is still a lot more to do on jobs and ill health in mining communities, which we have suffered for generations.

Sandra Osborne: It has been humbling to listen to comrades who were involved in the miners’ strike. I can confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) that I was indeed one of the women who was brought into the Labour movement—and very proud to be so.
	I agree with everything that has been said about justice for communities, but I want to make a specific point about the plight of my coalfield community. The bottom line is that to this day the coal industry remains important to our local area. The open-cast companies have been responsible for the worst environmental disaster imaginable, with two companies being placed in administration in 2013. The immediate result was the loss of more than 300 jobs, but the massive scale of environmental devastation left in east Ayrshire soon became evident: an estimated 2,000 hectares of unrestored and disturbed land, with almost a quarter of the area having 22 voids, 16 of which are filled with water more than 50 metres deep, and often unstable cliffs.
	Independent mining engineers have estimated restoration liabilities in line with the original planning permissions and approved restoration plans at £161 million—money that we do not have. The total amount available, if we are lucky, is only £28.6 million. An independent report by the council highlighted problems with its operations and with companies reneging on their responsibilities. That is why the communities that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) represent have been left devastated. Many failures, far too many to mention, are highlighted in the report. I strongly believe that, based on the findings of the report, there might be grounds for investigating the conduct of the directors of the coal operators, and I have raised this with the investigations and enforcement services of the Insolvency Service.
	This remains a bruising experience for the communities of east Ayrshire and I have raised my concerns over the environmental devastation and lack of accountability numerous times and will continue to do so. I have raised this on the Floor of the House with previous Ministers and with this Minister. I look forward to the response. I know that in the past few days the leader of East Ayrshire council has raised it again with the Department. Responsibility is shared between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, but so far we have got absolutely no change from either.
	I am a member of a coal taskforce—a cross-party initiative—that works closely with the communities. It is true that we have made some progress but, at the end of the day, we need funds to further the restoration.
	Hargreaves, a new company, has taken over some of the mines, but there is no way it will deal with the whole issue. I ask for a response from the Government. What will they do to help us? The disaster is the equivalent of foot and mouth and flooding. It should not have happened, but that is not the fault of my constituents. I yet again make a plea for assistance with this devastating problem.

Jon Trickett: This has been an extraordinary debate this afternoon. The wisdom, passion and experience of millions of people have been distilled by Labour Members. Only three Government Back Benchers spoke, but they gave not a word of contrition. There was not even any body language, to show a sense of guilt, remorse or apology for what was done during those years of the miners’ strike. The passion expressed exemplifies the feelings that still exist in the mining communities.

David Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jon Trickett: I am not giving way to any hon. Member because we are running out of time.
	From time to time, passion leads hon. Members to say things—I am referring to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Mr Hood). We recognise that there are ongoing investigations and it would be wrong to reference any particular individual. It would be wrong to prejudice those proceedings.
	I was a plumber at the time of the strike. I was elected to the council in the middle of the strike in September 1984. I spent part of my time going round pro bono fixing the heating and plumbing systems of striking miners. I was repeatedly stopped by the police, both in the process of my election and going about my lawful business. That exemplifies the experience of many tens of thousands of people in the mining communities during that time.
	There is a special dignity for those who work with their hands. The Tories simply do not share that belief. They have a different value system, one based on greed and hierarchy. They believe that the closed circle that runs our country—their spokespeople in the House—were born to rule, and that the rest of us were born to serve. That characterised their attitude during the strike. If hon. Members do not believe me, they can look at the Prime Minister’s comments in Glasgow in 2008, when he said, effectively, that the poor are responsible for their poverty. He should tell the mining communities that they were responsible for their poverty. Hon. Members should look at the next leader of the Conservative party, Boris Johnson, who only last year when talking about inequality said in The Daily Telegraph that some people are too thick to get ahead. He should tell that to the mining communities after their experience.
	The miners had a totally different set of values from those of the Tories. The Tories despised their values. Their values were of community, and of mutual support and solidarity. To this very day, there is an elemental sense of equality in mining communities. The miners did not know and never would accept the meaning of the word “deference”, and rightly so. The age of deference should have died long ago, but the Tories hated the idea that working people—any working people, but in this
	case the miners—should organise themselves around those values of community and solidarity and create the most powerful trade union this country has seen.
	The 1984 Cabinet papers reveal the truth, the underhand tactics and even the lies of the Government of that time, both out in the communities and in the House. People talk about miners who continued to work, but they were lied to about the Government’s intentions. That is what happened.
	The Government launched a full-scale assault on the mining communities and, in doing so, destroyed the independence of the police force. There were trumped-up charges all over the coalfield communities. Criminal justice was reduced to a political instrument. There is even evidence that members of the armed forces were dressed in police uniforms by the then Government, all this to achieve Tory party political objectives.
	But we are not simply speaking today about history. The Tory attitude to the miners and the former mining communities is symbolic of a wider view that they have of working people as a whole. We need only look at the explosion in the use of zero-hours contracts, temporary work and false self-employment to see that the Conservatives have not changed. They are still the same old nasty party.
	Once again the Conservatives are turning their back on mining communities. In my constituency, and I guess elsewhere too, the same women who worked in the soup kitchens during the miners’ strike, and their daughters, are now working in the food banks. How can that happen in one of the richest countries of the world in 2014? Nobody would believe it was possible. The Government have failed to understand that if society asks people to work with their hands in the bowels of the earth to help to create the wealth of our country, that society—our country—owes those people a debt of gratitude, which we might describe as a social contract. When mines are closed or industries die, we have a moral duty to look after the people who created the wealth of our country in such difficult circumstances.
	The previous Government did much to honour the idea of a social contract. We spent billions of pounds compensating tens of thousands of former miners for miners diseases, from which many are still suffering today. In my constituency 12,500 miners or their families went through my office during those Labour years and received damages of over £100 million—in one constituency alone. The Labour Government invested £1.5 billion in coalfield regeneration, creating employment or training for 150,000 people. It was Labour that set up the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which assisted more than 400,000 people in finding jobs, accessing skills, getting education and improving their health.
	Although much was done in those 15 years, the job is not finished. There are still high levels of ill health in my constituency and in all the coalfield areas, with 7.4% of people in the Yorkshire coalfield areas suffering ill health, compared with 5.6% nationally. Then, in mining areas with high levels of chronic diseases, we face the insult of GP cuts and hospital closures.
	Unemployment is still 40% higher in coalfield areas than the national average. Deprivation levels in coalfield areas remain at 43%—

Lady Hermon: rose—

Jon Trickett: I am not taking interventions.
	Our society—our country—owes a debt to the miners and to all manual workers. Before I hand over to the Minister, I want to ask her four questions. First, will she on behalf of her party finally express some humility and apologise to the miners and the communities which it left devastated? Secondly, will she now authorise the release of all the papers held in the Government archives to find the truth about what happened in the mining communities, and will she authorise an independent inquiry into the events that surrounded the strike?
	Thirdly, may we have a clear assurance that if the Government are still minded, even at this late stage, to find state aid to help the three remaining deep mine pits, that aid will not accelerate closure but will allow the pits to continue until the reserves are exhausted? Finally, will the Minister commit the Government to the full-scale ongoing process of regenerating the coalfield areas? Those people put themselves in harm’s way for the health and wealth of our country. Do we not have a responsibility to make sure that those communities are properly remunerated and regenerated in the future?

Penny Mordaunt: As ever, I have come to the Chamber this afternoon in the spirit of being helpful and focused on the needs and ambitions of communities across the country. Usually, there are asks in Opposition or Adjournment debates—for more investment, greater freedom or support for public services and good causes—but there has been little of that this afternoon. Understandably, there is speculation about why the Opposition have used up their time on the Floor of the House this afternoon. I could continue to speculate about that, but I would rather focus on the needs of the communities that Opposition Members are supposed to be serving. In doing so, I wish to acknowledge the important role that our nation’s mining heritage can play in that.
	In that respect, this debate is timely, as this Thursday sees a ceremony marking the groundbreaking Betteshanger Sustainable Park development in Kent—Betteshanger, of course, being the last pit to close in Kent. I was fortunate enough to visit the site only last week, to see for myself how the landmark development will transform the former Betteshanger colliery into a 21st-century global laboratory for green technologies. This pioneering project, backed by £40 million of investment, with £11 million of public sector funding, including £2.5 million from the Government’s coastal communities fund, has helped to trigger £29 million of private investment.
	Betteshanger Sustainable Park is a major shot in the arm for east Kent. It will celebrate Kent’s coal mining heritage, which is juxtaposed with sustainable technologies in a world-class, zero-carbon building. It will deliver new jobs and regeneration to the whole area, putting the local community right at the heart of the development and attracting significant private sector support. The development will also provide improved access to cycling and outdoor pursuits—important facilities for local people.
	The centre, scheduled to open in spring 2016, will create a new national eco-tourism visitor destination, attracting more than 1 million visitors a year. It will showcase mining heritage and sustainable energy production. A bespoke green technologies enterprise
	complex will provide space for companies in food security, environmental technology and green business. The Betteshanger sustainable education centre will support world-class research and development in environmental and countryside programmes, climate change, sustainability, and agro-ecology and production. The park itself, a gateway to east Kent, will provide lifelong learning, shops, public spaces and events, and create 1,000 jobs.

David Hamilton: Will the Minister give way?

Penny Mordaunt: I am going to carry on.
	That is just one example of how such communities are regenerating themselves—[Interruption]—although I am sorry that the Opposition do not want to hear it. The Government’s approach, in Kent as elsewhere, has been to enable local people, businesses and organisations, who know better than anyone else what is needed and where, to make their own decisions and set their own priorities. That is as true for coalfield communities as it is anywhere else. As part of our long-term economic plan to secure Britain’s future, the Government have agreed a series of growth deals with businesses and local communities across England which will support local businesses to train young people, create thousands of new jobs, build thousands of new homes and start hundreds of infrastructure projects. There is an opportunity for local enterprise partnerships that cover former coalfield areas to play a major role in taking regeneration forward.
	We have also created enterprise zones in former coalfield areas—for example, the Sheffield city region enterprise zone, which has sites on a number of former local collieries. The Orgreave colliery and coking plant has now been transformed into a centre for advanced manufacturing, while Markham Vale is benefiting from £14.2 million of capital grant funding to develop a sustainable business park, which has just announced the latest new occupier, Inspirepac, which is expanding its operation and creating hundreds of new jobs. Many Members have also mentioned the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which has created and safeguarded more than 4,000 jobs, helped more than 125,000 gain new skills—

Helen Goodman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister who opened the debate said that unemployment in my constituency, and in several others, had fallen. I have checked, and the Office for National Statistics says that in June 2010 unemployment was 4,300, while the latest figures are 4,400. I wanted to give the Minister the opportunity to correct himself at the Dispatch Box.

Mr Speaker: The point is on the record, but that is not a matter for the Chair. The Minister will respond if she chooses to do so, and not if she chooses not to.

Penny Mordaunt: Not much has been said by Labour Members about the issues of concern to all our constituents, so I am happy to provide some balance. I can understand Labour Members not wanting to talk about growth or job creation in their own constituencies, but I had thought that at the very least they might wish to address some of the outstanding issues. Today, for example, there has been some sad news that a manufacturing plant in Barnsley has announced that it is going to close, with the loss of 120 jobs. I am pleased to see that those whose jobs are at risk are being properly supported,
	but I was surprised not to hear about that in the opening speech of the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher).
	As I say, I can understand the Opposition not wanting to talk about growth and jobs, but I would have thought that they would want to discuss the remaining challenges. That is our focus. It is we who are focused on getting people back into work and supporting businesses and helping communities to regenerate themselves and achieve their ambitions. Unfortunately, Labour seems to have different priorities.
	The contributions we have heard this afternoon have fallen firmly into two camps. From those on the Opposition Benches, we have heard speeches that have made the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) and his hybrid car look positively “with it”; speeches that have been focused on the past or on smearing members of the upper House. There was not a pipsqueak from the hon. Members for North West Durham (Pat Glass) or for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) about the achievements of businesses in their constituencies and how they are reinventing themselves in rail manufacturing, to give just one example. No Labour Member has sought to explain this afternoon why they did not reverse any of the trade union reforms they have so vilified today, or why in its 13 years in government, Labour did not tackle any of the issues Labour Members have raised today.
	By contrast, contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), for Warrington South (David Mowat), for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) and for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) have been focused on the future, on growth, job creation and helping their communities to achieve their ambitions.
	Let me put on record the achievements of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which now has a sustainable future, after its investment in property and other assets. There is also the work of the Homes and Communities Agency’s coalfields programme, which was due to progress the physical regeneration of former coalfield sites. This
	work is nearing completion, and the associated land assets are expected to form part of the HCA’s up and coming programme to dispose of public sector land. The HCA has invested about £660 million in coalfield areas during the life of the coalfields programme. The DCLG’s coalfields funds, the coalfields enterprise fund and the coalfields growth fund have also been investing in innovative small and medium-sized enterprises in deprived former coalfield areas. This will continue until 2016, when the investment phase is due to end. Other sources of investment for SMEs across the board are now available, and these funds have proved to be much more effective than the coalfield fundings, being directed through local enterprise partnerships. Much has been achieved, but there is obviously much more to do.
	In closing, I will say sorry. I am sorry that Her Majesty’s Opposition are stuck in the 1970s. Their constituents and their businesses are firmly in 2014, and I hope that for their sake, their Labour representatives join them in the 21st century some time soon.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House acknowledges the economic legacy of the pit closure programme in coalfield communities across the United Kingdom; notes that the recent release of the relevant 1984 Cabinet papers showed that the Government at the time misled the public about the extent of its pit closure plans and sought to influence police tactics; recognises the regeneration of former coalfield areas over the last fifteen years, the good work of organisations such as the Coalfield Regeneration Trust, and the largest industrial injury settlement in legal history secured by the previous Government for former miners suffering from bronchitis and emphysema; further recognises the ongoing problems highlighted recently by the report produced by Sheffield Hallam University on The State of the Coalfields, which revealed that there are still significant problems for the majority of Britain’s coalfield communities, such as fewer jobs, lower business formation rates, higher unemployment rates, more people with serious health issues, higher numbers in receipt of welfare benefits and a struggling voluntary and community sector; and therefore calls for the continued regeneration and much needed support for coalfield communities as part of a wider programme to boost growth in Britain’s regions.

A5 TRUNK ROAD (M42/M69)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Harriett Baldwin.)

Mr Speaker: When Members have toddled out of the Chamber, speedily and quietly, Mr Marcus Jones can rise to his feet to orate.

Marcus Jones: I am delighted to have been able to secure a debate about one of the busiest and most congested parts of our strategic road network. I am pleased to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) is present—he, too, has a constituency interest in this busy stretch of the A5—and I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for his time, and for the consideration that I hope he will give to the debate.
	Let me explain why I am concerned about this stretch of the A5, and why I believe that there needs to be a fundamental rethink about the future of that busy highway for the sake of my constituents who live on the route, and for the sake of economic growth in the west and east midlands corridor.
	The A5, or Watling street, which marks the northern boundary of my constituency, was built by the Romans, who originally built the road from Londinium to Deva—or London to Chester, as we know them today. I have not established the exact date when Watling street was built, but the fact that the Romans withdrew from Britain in 410 AD gives us a slight clue as to the longevity of the route. I am certain that the sheer volume of traffic that would use Watling street in the 21st Century was never envisaged, even once the ownership of cars became commonplace after the second world war. That is why so many other sections of the busy road, which now stretches from London to Holyhead, have been substantially changed to reflect the volume of vehicles that use it.
	Today, the A5 between junction 10 of the M42 and junction 1 of the M69 is one of the most congested routes on the strategic road network, particularly between the Longshoot junction and the Dodwells roundabout. That section is considered to be the 15th most congested section of road on the network. Many of my constituents live along Watling Street and on feeder roads such as the Longshoot, Higham lane, Weddington road and Woodford lane. They live every day with the imposition of queuing traffic, high levels of noise and massive pollution.
	The pressure on the route is often compounded when traffic shifts from the M6 to the A5. There are regular closures on the M6. As my right hon. Friend knows, I have expressed concern in the House before about the safety of junctions 1 to 4 on the M6, where there are regular accidents. My constituents are affected by the way in which the traffic shifts from the motorway through my constituency to the A5 in order to reach the M42 and the M69. You probably think that that is a subject for a debate on another day, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will give my comments some consideration tonight.
	Over the decades, this section of the A5 has undergone numerous redesigns to deal with safety issues and to mitigate the growing number of vehicles on our roads. For many years my constituents have suffered from the
	disruption of regular roadworks that are intended to improve the situation. At this very moment, work is taking place from the Dodwells roundabout to the Royal Red Gate junction, where the A5 meets the A444. Just tonight, I was interviewed on BBC Radio Coventry and Warwickshire about the issue, along with a very disgruntled lady who was less than happy about the current disruption. I think that that disruption is extremely unfortunate, but it is quite necessary. Much of the work that is being undertaken between the Royal Red Gate and Higham lane junctions is facilitating the new Motor Industry Research Association technology park, which is creating more than 2,000 new jobs. As well as the new jobs, that part of the route will have a very positive effect on the local area because it is being turned into dual carriageway. Inevitably, that progress will put greater stress on the Longshoot junction and the Dodwells roundabout east of MIRA, but that will largely be mitigated by the current pinch-point scheme now under construction. The changes now taking place on the A5 will have a positive effect and there will be gain for the pain that my constituents and the many users of this busy route are experiencing.
	I am also convinced, however, that we need a longer-term solution and we must seek it now. We cannot wait five, 10, 15 or 20 years before we consider the future. That would not be right for my constituents or the wider west and east midlands economy.
	A substantial amount of development is planned along the A5 corridor both in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth. As my constituents know, I do not agree with all of the development plans being promoted by the local planning authority in my constituency. However, it appears from the approach it is taking that these developments will go ahead whether I or my constituents like them or not. We must therefore think about substantive solutions for this section of the A5 to deal with the future issues.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister will also be aware of the significant partnership-working currently taking place on the issue between the Highways Agency, the Coventry and Warwickshire local enterprise partnership, the Leicester and Leicestershire LEP, Warwickshire county council, Leicestershire county council, and the Nuneaton and Bedworth, Hinckley and Bosworth and North Warwickshire borough councils. The Minister will know that those agencies have jointly started to conduct some very embryonic work on a strategic enhancement of this section of the A5. They are looking at the issues and constraints that affect that busy section of highway.
	That work has been conducted by the partnership, which has been formed because there is a strong business case for a long-term solution to the problems we face on that section of highway. It is thought that a long-term solution for that section of the A5 could bring savings of £680 million through better travel times, lower vehicle operating costs and a reduction in the accident rate on what is a busy stretch of road. That proposal aligns with the strategic growth aspirations of both the public sector and the private sector in the area. This evening I am asking the Minister to look at the detail of the embryonic work that has already been conducted and that I am sure his Department has seen.

Mark Pawsey: My hon. Friend is making a very strong case for the A5, which is an important route from the M1 at junction 18 to the
	north-west, avoiding the M6. I wonder whether we might persuade the Minister to look at the southern part of the A5 as well, from the M69 down to the M1. There will be very substantial housing and commercial development at the junction 18 end, and we could use that as an opportunity to improve that thoroughfare.

Marcus Jones: I thank my hon. Friend, who represents Rugby. I completely agree with his request in relation to the section further down the A5, which can only help the situation further up the A5, to the benefit of my constituents and the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth. I would also say in that regard that the work currently going on at the Catthorpe interchange, where the M6 meets the M1-A14, will have an extremely positive effect for our constituents in addressing, hopefully, some of the issues—not all, but some—that I referred to earlier: the A5 and Nuneaton get so clogged with traffic due to accidents on the M6.
	This evening, I am asking the Minister to speak to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Transport and the Chancellor about this issue, which is a matter of major concern for my constituents and many other people living in the region. He will know that the embryonic work has been carried out. I am now looking for a sympathetic ear in the hope that he will put forward my argument that funding for a further in-depth investigation and feasibility study of this busy stretch of the strategic road network should be made available. The investigation needs to include all stakeholders, particularly the people who live on and are affected by the current route.
	I know how diligent the Minister is. He has helped me personally with other issues in my constituency, including the fallout following the closure of Daw Mill colliery. I remember the assistance that he gave me at that time, and I am confident that he will try to help in whatever way he can now. We have an autumn statement coming up, and I am sure that he will make a strong case to the Secretary of State and the Chancellor so that we can look at the long-term future of this busy section of the A5, which needs urgent consideration. I hope that the points that I have put on record tonight will go some way to enabling the case to go forward, so that we can do the right thing for my constituents. That has not been achieved under numerous Governments over the decades, and my constituents have had to put up with absolute mayhem on that section of this busy route.

David Tredinnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for sharing the debate with me. He has done a great job in representing Nuneaton in the House since his election. He has been a credit to his constituents and it has always been a pleasure to work with him.
	The problem with this section of the A5 is a problem of success as much as of failure. The huge expansion of MIRA as well as of the business park that was agreed by my right hon. Friend the Minister’s coalition colleagues, has created thousands of jobs. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton said, this is a unique stretch of road. Indeed, the section to which he referred, between Dodwells bridge and the Longshoot, actually consists of two roads: the A5 Watling street and the
	A47. However, the one does not run above the other. Both are confined into the space of a narrow highway the width of an old-fashioned turnpike.
	My hon. Friend has talked about the importance of the road generally. I should like to alert the Minister to a specific problem that is affecting my constituency at the crossing of the A444 and the A5 at the Royal Red Gate junction. I raise the matter because it reflects badly on the organisations concerned, including the Government, the Highways Agency, the county council and Hinckley and Bosworth borough council, none of which has properly consulted Witherley parish council about the matter.
	I should like to say a few words about parish councils. The people representing their residents on parish councils are the salt of the earth. They are often very clever people such as the chair of Witherley parish council, who was the head of government and industry affairs at East Midlands airport. We have in this instance a complete failure of communication, in that the local people are under the strong impression that they are not being properly consulted. I ask the Minister to ensure that, when the roundabout at the Royal Red Gate junction is developed, clear signage is put in place to divert the long-distance traffic off on to the M42 and well away from the A5. Also, we do not want the problem of rat runs being blocked, or unblocked, without consultation. I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton for raising this important matter, and I look forward—as I am sure he does—to hearing the Minister’s reply.

John Hayes: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing this debate on the A5 trunk road between the M42, junction 10 and the M69, junction 2. As has been said, he has been a tireless campaigner on the need for future investment in this road, and I recognise his continuing courageous determination in that respect. He has raised this issue on behalf of his constituents, local businesses and the local economy. C.S Lewis said that
	“courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point”.
	My hon. Friend’s courage has been in evidence once again tonight in raising these matters.
	This Government recognise the crucial role that transport infrastructure plays in facilitating growth across the country and creating a more balanced economy, but that alone would not be justification, of itself; I take the view, and have increasingly evangelised it in the Department and more widely, that improving transport is also about well-being, communal opportunity, individual chances to gain employment and new experiences, and good civil society. I see transport and communications in that broader perspective, which I know my hon. Friend shares. In connecting communities and in enabling people to access jobs, services and leisure, transport can play a vital role in regenerative efforts. That is why we have been determined to reverse the effects of the previous Administration’s neglect by securing significant levels of investment in our strategic road network.
	All Governments make mistakes and all Governments do things well. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I like to be generous in these matters, but one of the previous
	regime’s mistakes was to allow their approach to roads to be driven by the piecemeal, the ad hoc and the reactive. By contrast, this Government are taking a strategic, long-term, lateral view of the importance of investing in roads, which is why we have committed five-year funding to strategic road investment. Hon. Members will know that the detail of that investment in strategic transport infrastructure was set out by the Chancellor in last year’s spending review statement. The Treasury Command Paper “Investing in Britain’s future” set out that this Government will invest more than £28 billion in enhancements and maintenance of both national and local roads over the period up to 2020-21. That long-term vision, backed by funding, will build consistency and coherence into the approach we take to road development. It means that existing roads will be improved—we are resurfacing about 80% of the nation’s roads— and we will invest £10.7 billion in major national road projects, as well as £6 billion in the maintenance of strategic roads.
	On the future investment in the strategic network, my hon. Friend will be aware that the Highways Agency is currently conducting its route strategy process. Route strategies will provide a smarter approach to investment planning across the network, through greater collaboration with local stakeholders to determine the nature, need and timing of those investments. The process has been hallmarked by two stages, the first of which has been completed. It identified performance issues on routes, future challenges and growth opportunities, taking full account of local priorities and aspirations, with the finalised evidence made available on 23 April. The second stage is well under way; utilising the evidence, we are establishing outline operational and investment priorities for all routes on the strategic road network, and we will take forward a programme of work to identify indicative solutions, which will cover operational, maintenance and, if appropriate, road improvement schemes to inform future investment plans.

Mark Pawsey: Will the Minister acknowledge the importance of the improvement of such roads to the road haulage industry—many of its firms are based in my constituency—and the important part that logistics plays in our national economy?

John Hayes: Indeed, and it was for that very reason that I met the representative body of road hauliers just last week, in the spirit that my hon. Friend personifies. In congratulating and applauding the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton, I must also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and for Bosworth (David Tredinnick), who have been tireless campaigners in the defence of and, moreover, in their aspirations for their constituents. They have all taken a particular interest in the A5.

Christopher Pincher: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for giving way. May I say that, as a Transport Minister, he is also the people’s friend? In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), may I pray in aid the A5, which is a very important route that my constituents use from the exit of the M42? One part of that exit, which is not dualled, is the exit going towards my hon. Friend’s constituency
	through North Warwickshire. The route is important for infrastructure and for my constituents. I urge the Minister to listen to what he says.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend follows in the tradition of his predecessor, Sir Robert Peel, who also represented Tamworth, in his determination to do what is right for those whom he serves. I prefer to be inspired by Disraeli, as perhaps my hon. Friend does too. None the less, that is an important tradition, and he makes, as always, a powerful argument in this Chamber.
	The Government already recognise the importance of improving the A5. The Highways Agency pinch point scheme for the M42 junction 10, which was completed earlier this year, along with the Highways Agency pinch point scheme for the A5-A47 Longshoot and Dodwells junctions, which has recently started on site, are due to be completed by March 2015.
	In addition, the MIRA enterprise zone, which is located adjacent to the A5 in Hinckley, was successful in securing regional growth funding with which it is providing A5 improvements. Those improvements include increasing the capacity at the A444 Redgate junction as well as improving the access arrangements to the site itself. Those works are currently on site and are expected to be completed by March 2015.
	Overall, these schemes show Government investment of around £15 million into improving this section of the A5. However, I recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton is concerned that the scale and potential economic and housing growth along the corridor will place increasing pressure on the A5 and that—he has made the case tonight—further investment in the route is necessary. To that end I commend the efforts made by—

Marcus Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

John Hayes: Let me finish what I was saying, as I am about to commend my hon. Friend and I know that he would not want to miss that.
	I was about to say that I commend the efforts made to date by my hon. Friend, along with the relevant local stakeholders, to engage with the Highways Agency through its route strategy process. I recognise that concerns over the capacity of the A5 were raised by a number of local stakeholders during the Highways Agency’s route strategy stakeholder event, with a particular reference to the notable economic and housing development planned along the corridor.

Marcus Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words, which will, I am sure, be matched with action by him to support my constituents in relation to this important route. May I also impress on him the importance of consultation with the public in relation to any changes to the A5? Over many years, there have been lots of different reconfigurations, particularly at the Redgate and Longshoot junctions, on which, unfortunately, my constituents have not been consulted. Many think that, as a result, they have not seen the best outcomes.

John Hayes: At this point, to the distress of my officials no doubt, I will detach myself from the prepared brief and say two things. First, if that is the case, then I will give this guarantee to the House tonight from this
	Dispatch Box that we will improve the way in which we engage with local stakeholders to ensure that any omission or error is not completed. Secondly, as my hon. Friend mentioned that the A5 was a Roman road, I will draw on G.K. Chesterton’s poem, “The Rolling English Road”. I am inspired by the following words. Chesterton talked about walking with
	“clearer eyes and ears this path that wandereth.”
	I assure my hon. Friend that with that clear sight, this listening Minister in this listening Government will ensure once again that local people’s views are taken fully into account.

David Tredinnick: rose—

John Hayes: I will give way briefly to my hon. Friend, because I want to then say some other exciting and exhilarating things.

David Tredinnick: I am not seeking a commendation such as that given to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton.
	There has been poor consultation on the Redgate junction. If the Minister is going to put up barriers on these major roads, they will have to be concrete to make sure that no one can break through them when they are not supposed to.

John Hayes: I am mindful of what my hon. Friend says and I want to pay particular attention to those remarks and his earlier remarks if I have time in a few moments. He raised some important concerns that are particular but deserve full consideration.
	As I say, I commend the partnership working between local authorities along the corridor, with the relevant Government departments, including the Highways Agency, and the efforts that have been undertaken recently to carry out an initial study of the potential substantive options for the route. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton paid attention to that in his remarks. Although this is only an initial step, as he acknowledged, I understand that the embryonic work indicates that a very significant scheme to improve the full length of the route between the M42 and the M69 to dual carriageway standard may be an appropriate long-term option.
	This proposal is being considered by the Highways Agency through the route strategy process. At this stage I cannot guarantee that funding further to progress the
	study work for such a solution to the A5 will be included in the upcoming roads investment strategy, but I will guarantee this evening that it will be actively considered, along with other proposals for the strategic network, and mindful of the remarks of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who have fought this brave campaign, I will reinforce those concerns when I return to the Department tomorrow morning.
	I want to say a particular word to my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick), because he has raised some specific doubts about some of the road closures that have taken place. This is not the first time that he has raised them in the House. Again, his diligence speaks for itself. I want to give him this assurance. I understand that the road closures in their current format meet safety and access requirements and though the disruption is significant for some, I know he welcomes growth across the network. As a result of his intervention tonight, I will ask the Department to look again at the impact of those closures, what more the Highway Agency can do to make sure they are as minimal as they can be, and to take any further measures to ease problems that may arise from that disruption.
	I said at the outset of the debate that the hon. Member for Nuneaton has done the House a service. It may be unconventional, but I take the view that Government policy should be framed and shaped through debates such as this. It is not sufficient for a Minister to stand here and not respond to hon. Members’ concerns, on whatever side of the Chamber they sit. I will ensure that in all the work we do as a Government, and our agencies do on our behalf, the considerations of hon. Members, representing and articulating as they do the concerns of the people they serve, are at the very heart of what the Government do.
	C. S. Lewis also said:
	“You are never too old to set another goal or to dream a new dream.”
	I know that my hon. Friend’s goal, and that of other hon. Members, is that the A5 serves its purpose in delivering the well-being that I described and fuelling the economic growth that we all seek. This debate has taken that dream one step further.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.